Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SERJEANT AT ARMS (RETIREMENT)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter from the Serjeant at Arms:

"Sir,

I have the honour to make application that you will be pleased to sanction my retirement on 31st December, 1956, from my office by patent of Her Majesty's Serjeant at Arms attending the Speaker of the House of Commons.

I have been in the service of this honourable House for over 21 years and I feel that the time has arrived when it is desirable that I should no longer retain my appointment.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

Charles Howard,

(Serjeant at Arms)."

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am sure that the House has heard with sincere regret the letter which you, Sir, have read. When the House resumes in the New Year, I will move a Motion expressing the appreciation of this House to Brigadier Sir Charles Howard for his services as Serjeant at

Arms. I hope the fact that I do not move that Motion today will in no way detract from the very warm feelings we all have in regard to the Serjeant at Arms and to his eminent services in the past. The fact that I am moving it when we resume is according to precedent.

Mr. J. Griffiths: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, may I associate myself with what the Leader of the House has said? There will be a further opportunity—I hope in a full House—to pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

Irene Mervyn Parnicott Pike, for Melton.

BILL PRESENTED

RATING AND VALUATION

Bill to reduce, during the currency of existing valuation lists, the rateable value of certain hereditaments; to make further provision as to the amounts payable by way of rates or in lieu of rates by the British Transport Commission, the Central Electricity Authority and Area Gas Boards; to amend the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, as to the ascertainment of the rateable value for an area; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. H. Brooke and Mr. J. Enoch Powell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 22nd January, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

CYPRUS (EMERGENCY REGULATIONS)

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: My original purpose was to raise the question of the new Emergency Regulations in Cyprus which were promulgated by the Governor just over three weeks ago, but since you, Sir, selected this as the first subject for debate on the Christmas Adjournment, a great deal has happened in connection with Cyprus. I propose to deal briefly with some of those new developments, but my main theme remains the Emergency Regulations in that island.
The island of Cyprus has endured more than 12 months, not only of bloodshed and sudden and violent death, but of repressive government and Draconian legislation—government and legislation of a kind which, happily, is rare in what we call the democratic world. Many of us had hoped that the anniversary of the introduction of the first Emergency Regulations would be marked by some relaxation. That anniversary fell towards the end of last month. We hoped for that relaxation if only as a gesture to usher in what we thought was perhaps going to be a new era in the relations between this country and that unhappy island; but instead of any relaxation we had this announcement by the Governor of new and still more stringent Regulations, which meant more intensive repression than ever.
These new Regulations fall into three categories. The first deals with an extension of the death penalty; the second with an intensification of the already very serious censorship of the Press, and the third comprises the Public Officers' Protection Regulations. These measures were dealt with at some length, and very severely criticised, in another place about a fortnight ago. The complaints that I have to make today are, in general, similar to those made in another place, and I would summarise them quite briefly. What I think is quite extraordinary is the reply which was given, on behalf of the Government, by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd.
The Regulation extending the death penalty means that now, for carrying a bomb or a firearm in Cyprus, the only possible penalty is death. What is still more disturbing is that the death penalty can now be exacted for a new crime described as consorting with terrorists. A reading of the Regulation shows that this can mean that a person walking along a street in Nicosia with a man who has a gun or a bomb on him can himself suffer the penalty of death, even though he may not have known that his companion was carrying a weapon. The noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, claimed that under this Regulation, if two poachers were arrested in Cyprus and one had a gun on him for the purpose of his trade or profession, as it were, then both would, inevitably, suffer death. In the reply of the Government spokesman, this interpretation of the Regulations as they now stand was not denied.
I do not propose to say very much about the Regulations dealing with the Press, because they have, to some extent, been amended and relaxed. I would, however, remind the House that, for a year, the Press in Cyprus has been working under a control and a threat of censorship which is wholly alien to our traditions and which, I think, represents probably the most serious interference with the right of free speech that we have seen in the Commonwealth in our time. Indeed, the very respected editor of the Times of Cyprus, Mr. Charles Foley, is at this moment facing charges under the old Emergency Regulations which could result in a year's imprisonment, a £100 fine, or both. That is under the old, the less stringent, Regulations.
I would remind hon. Members that at no time during the eight years of terrorism in Malaya was the British Press ever subjected to censorship, to control, or even to advice tendered by the Government of Malaya. The new Regulations which recently came into force in Cyprus empower the Governor of that island, at his absolute discretion, to suppress and shut down a newspaper, without reason given and without any notice at all. That seems to me to be a fantastic interference with the rights of free speech and freedom of expression.
Lastly, I would mention the Public Officers' Protection Regulations. Under these Regulations the ordinary citizen is


denied access to the courts to prosecute any complaint he may have not only against a member of the security forces but against any Government official, unless he has the consent of the Attorney-General of Cyprus, who is, of course, himself a member of the Government. In other words, the Attorney-General can prevent anyone from obtaining redress against a Government official for any injury which has been done, or which he believes has been done, to him. The Government become judge and jury in their own case. I would like to ask the Minister of State to look at what would have happened had these Regulations been in force a few weeks ago.
We have all heard about the extremely unpleasant form of punishment which has been exacted from time to time in Cyprus, punishment by collective fines; but, recently, a collective fine of £35,000 exacted on the people of Limassol under the Emergency Regulations was found by the High Court in Cyprus to have been illegally imposed. I have no doubt that it is a result of that judicial decision that, amongst the relaxations announced a few days ago, was, I am happy to say, the total abandonment of these collective fines.
Nevertheless, if these Public Officers' Protection Regulations had been in force at that time, would not individuals who had been fined, and who instituted the proceedings that resulted in the whole fine being quashed, have been prevented by the Attorney-General from taking their case to court? That seems to me to be an extremely serious thing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views on it when he winds up this debate.
The Emergency Regulations in Cyprus add up to an almost total denial of civil liberties there, and it is small wonder that in an editorial the other day, The Times said that they had been amended
…to a point of severity which is nothing but ruthless.
I should now like to call the attention of the House to the reply of the Government spokesman in another place. A number of points had been raised by noble Lords, and the Under-Secretary of State replied:
It is also true to say that drafting is a difficult business. It is difficult sometimes without drafting rather widely, to cover the

sort of cases which one knows one must deal with. I think the noble Earl will agree with me that precise drafting is a difficult art and is difficult to achieve. I am not going to pretend that this drafting is perfect. It may be that many of the things he has said are correct, and we may be able to improve these Regulations. I will certainly have a look at them again and see whether that can be done." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 6th December, 1956; vol. 200, c. 828–829.]
In the course of his remarks, on no fewer than half a dozen occasions the noble Lord said either that he would look at the drafting here, consider the wording there, or have another look at the point.
As we are here dealing with Regulations under which sentence of death can be passed and men executed, it seems amazing that these Regulations should have been drafted in so careless a manner that they could be shot to pieces and that the intention and the drafting seems to differ all along the line. I want to ask the Minister of State who actually approved these Regulations? Who initiated them in the first place? Did they come from his Department, or did they come from the Governor. When, as no doubt happened, his right hon. Friend was asked to approve them, what legal advice did he get. To what extent was the wording scrutinised? To what extent was it discovered whether or not the drafting of the Regulations carried out the intentions that were supposed to be behind them?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: What about the Law Officers?

Mr. Robinson: Indeed, what about the Law Officers? Were the Law Officers consulted in this matter, as they most certainly should have been consulted?
Having said that, I think all my hon. Friends will welcome the news that we have heard this week that certain Regulations are to be relaxed. We welcome a small and modest advance, but which is nevertheless the first move of any kind in this direction in more than a year. Under this relaxation some 30 detainees have already been released, and we are told that the cases of men still under detention under Regulation 18B are to be reviewed.
We are glad to know that the despicable business of whipping youths is to be abolished and also that the no less uncivilised practice of collective punishment is being abandoned. I would say


again that I cannot help feeling that this last decision had some connection with the judicial findings about the illegality of the £35,000 fine on the people of Limassol.
The new Regulations governing the suppression of newspapers have not been withdrawn, but they have been amended to permit fair and honest criticism of the Government. They had to be amended in order to permit even that. I have tried to find out whether the new Regulations are available in this country, and I understand that they have not arrived. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us further about the new form of this Press censorship Regulation.
The greater part of the Emergency Regulations in Cyprus remain in force, and I should like hon. Members to reflect on what they mean in actual physical terms to the half-million people of this unhappy, torn island. I should like to tell the House a few of the things that happened in one month, the month of November. There were about 30 murders, an average of one a day. There were 10 Cypriots killed, including a child of seven years old, by the security forces. There were 80 explosions. There were 800 arrests, mainly for questioning. There were 18 Cypriots detained under Regulation 18B, and 20 Cypriots were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, most of them ranging between 15 and 5 years. Five youths were whipped. In 25 villages a curfew was imposed. A £35,000 collective fine was imposed on the people of Nicosia, and a £950 collective fine on the village of Panayia. The Larnaka Secondary School was permanently closed and its director was deported from the island.
Must this kind of thing go on indefinitely? Those of us who are particularly concerned about affairs of this island have looked forward to the proposals of Lord Radcliffe for a constitutional advance as perhaps heralding a new and happier phase in our relations. I must confess that I am less sanguine now than I was before I heard the statement of the Colonial Secretary after Questions last Wednesday, with its ominous reference to partition in the future. I will say another word about partition later, but I want to make it quite clear that I have no criticism of the way

in which Lord Radcliffe has carried out his mandate.
I quarrelled with the Secretary of State for the Colonies over the terms of reference that were given to Lord Radcliffe, and I do not want to reopen that quarrel today, but I would say one thing about the second requirement in the terms of reference. Hon. Members will remember that one of the things Lord Radcliffe had to take into account was
That the use of Cyprus as a base is necessary for the fulfilment by Her Majesty's Government of their international obligations and for the defence of British interests…
That, in the words of the Minister of Defence in another connection, is what all this is about. Let us make no mistake about that.
I wonder whether the Minister of State read a letter in the Sunday Times from a very distinguished military expert, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck. I will not quote the whole letter, although I should like to do so. I will quote merely one sentence. He said:
I would say that it"—
that is, Cyprus—
has none, or practically none, of the requisites of an efficient base for the deployment and subsequent employment in military operations of either sea, land or air forces or all three. It lacks almost every facility which a commander in war would expect to find in a base of operations.
When one considers that the whole of this unhappy story stems from the fact that Her Majesty's Government have always claimed that Cyprus was necessary as a base, one is a little concerned that a gentleman of the distinguished experience of Field Marshal Auchinleck states categorically that in his view it is useless as a base.
To return to Lord Radcliffe, I think that, given the terms of reference, he has produced about as liberal a Constitution as we could have expected, and I am sure we are all grateful to him for the painstaking way in which he has carried out his task and for what I, at any rate, find an extremely interesting and clear report.
In announcing this to the House, the Colonial Secretary said one very important thing. It was in response to a question by my right hon. Friend the


Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). The Secretary of State said:
I made it quite clear, I hope, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that there should be this Constitution in Cyprus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1956; Vol. 562. c. 1276.]
That can only mean, first, that the Constitution is final and that it is in no way open to negotiation or discussion, and secondly that it will be imposed on Cyprus if necessary. I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that my interpretation of that sentence is correct.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I say to my hon. Friend that I sincerely hope that he is not right, because the Colonial Secretary also said that he
…would pay the greatest possible attention to any suggestions which may be made, and the same would apply, of course, to suggestions from the people of Cyprus or from hon. Members of this House …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1956; Col. 562, c. 1274.]
He said that the proposals were balanced and that it would be difficult to disturb that plan, but I hope it does not mean what my hon. Friend suggests it will mean.

Mr. Robinson: I hope, too, that it does not mean that, but I would point out that the quotation that I gave was two columns later than the quotation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is a very clear statement. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to deny it now, I would be only too delighted.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Maclay): I should like the hon. Gentleman to repeat what he said, because I missed part of it.

Mr. Robinson: I quoted from Col. 1276 in HANSARD of 19th December. There the Secretary of State is reported as follows:
I made it quite clear, I hope, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that there should be this Constitution in Cyprus.
Perhaps he would give us the considered view of the Government on the precise meaning of that sentence.
I gladly acknowledge, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman hopes that the

Constitution will be accepted and worked by the people of Cyprus, that it will be voluntarily accepted, and that there will be no necessity to impose it. I am sure he hopes that. But it will not have escaped the notice of the House, and I am quite sure it will not have escaped the notice of Archbishop Makarios, that the people of Cyprus are now being offered less than was offered to and rejected by him in the negotiations which were broken off last March, and that to ask them to accept this Constitution is asking them to make a definite step forward from their earlier position.
Nevertheless, I hope—I want to make it quite clear that I am speaking only for myself here—that the people of Cyprus will accept and will work this Constitution. Moreover, I think that, subject to certain provisos, it will be reasonable for them to do so.
There are four very important prerequisites. First, it should be made quite clear that the acceptance of this Constitution in no way commits the people of Cyprus to the idea of partition in the future. I thought that that idea was folly when it was first flown as a kite by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), and I think it is no less a folly when advanced from the Government Front Bench. I wish those words dealing with partition could be unsaid, because they have already done a lot of harm. At any rate, it must be made quite clear that the acceptance of the Constitution will be wholly without prejudice to any conditions attaching to ultimate self-determination when the time comes for the exercise of this right.
Secondly, there must be a change of Governor. I do not want to attack Sir John Harding. I am very well aware that Sir John has been a distinguished public servant and has a fine military career behind him. I know—or I strongly suspect—that he did not want this job but undertook it only from a sincere sense of duty. I blame the Colonial Secretary for choosing a military man to undertake an essentially political job. This is not a unique mistake on the part of this Government; they are a little apt to choose men with military backgrounds to undertake complex political problems. It is not a suit-


able background; far from it fitting a man to undertake a political job, indeed, I can think of no career more unfitting.
With the best will in the world, I cannot regard Sir John Harding's Governorship of Cyprus as anything less than disastrous from the political point of view. Nor has it been particularly successful in his own sphere. He has been given a free hand and almost unlimited security forces to deal with Eoka; but, despite the repeated assurances we have had that Eoka is on its last legs and there are only a handful of terrorists left. who will be completely wiped out in X weeks or Y months, the month of November was the worst month yet in Cyprus for terrorist activity.
I know it is difficult to apportion responsibility between the Governor and the Secretary of State in these matters. It may be that Sir John Harding is merely a tool of the Secretary of State, in the same way as another military Governor of Cyprus a few centuries ago, Othello, was a tool of Iago. I do not want to carry the analogy too far, but I would happily cast the Colonial Secretary as Iago in any production of "Othello". There has been a lamentable lack of understanding on the part of the Governor of the whole political essence of this problem. Above all, Sir John Harding will always be associated in the Cypriot mind with repression and be remembered as the author of the detested Emergency Regulations. It would, I think, be asking too much of the people of Cyprus to co-operate with him in working a dyarchic Constitution.
Next, an amnesty on the most generous terms is, of course, an essential prerequisite of the introduction of any Constitution. Last—and this is most important —Archbishop Makarios should be allowed to return. not to Greece, as has been hinted in one or two places, but to Cyprus. He should be returned unconditionally and allowed to take his place again as the spiritual and political leader of his people. I believe that if the Government were today to announce that they proposed that Archbishop Makarios should return to Cyprus in one month's time, terrorism would cease.
I believe that that is a chance which could reasonably be taken, but, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is going a little too far, then could the

Government not say something like this—that the Archbishop's exile is terminated and that he will return to Cyprus within, say, one month, provided that terrorist activity has ceased by then? If it has not, perhaps he could then go to Greece instead. If only the Government would take some enlightened step of this kind, and appreciate that they have been totally unsuccessful in destroying the Archbishop's influence in the island by exiling him to the Seychelles, I believe they could transform the situation.
This is the last chance. It is certainly the last chance that this Government will have of solving the Cyprus problem. They are asking the people of Cyprus to take a big step in accepting this Constitution. Some move forward from their own position is required equally of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that they will take this last chance.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: A week or so ago, the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) combined with one right hon. and two hon. Members of the Liberal Party to put down a Motion on the Order Paper condemning these Emergency Regulations.

[That this House deplores the ruthless severity and repression of the further emergency regulations in Cyprus, which extend the imposition of the death penalty without option of commutation; empower the Governor to suppress newspapers wihout notice or stated reason and remove front the normal process of law police and members of the forces who commit offences while on duty against the civilian population; considers that, in view of the forthcoming consultations on Lord Radcliffe's proposals, it is especially regrettable that the new Press regulations have the power to prevent free and candid discussion: and urges the withdrawal of these regulations as a contribution to a new atmosphere of tolerance and cooperation, essential to constructive constitutional progress.]

I must therefore confess that I was not surprised to find that he had sought your permission. Mr. Speaker, to raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House today.

There is one thing in common between the speech of the hon. Gentleman this morning and the wording of the Motion, namely, that in neither is there one single word of condemnation of the terrorists for the campaign of murder which they have been letting loose in Cyprus in the last twelve months and, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, more especially in the month of November.

Mr. K. Robinson: Really, this is getting a little tiresome. Whenever hon. Members on this side of the House speak about Cyprus, they have from time to time said that they hate violence of any kind whether exercised by the terrorists or by the Government in countermeasures. Really, if we are not to be allowed to make a speech on Cyprus without constantly reiterating that in every speech, the position will be quite impossible.

Mr. Russell: I did not suggest for one moment that the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member on the other side of the House did not condemn terrorism. My point is that every time an hon. Member opposite makes a speech of the kind made this morning—as has happened on many occasions—without condemning terrorism, then he is unwittingly giving encouragement to the terrorists in the island to go on with their murderous campaign. I therefore feel that it is desirable that hon. Members opposite should accompany any remarks they make about the Emergency Regulations or any complaint against the action of the Government in Cyprus with a condemnation of terrorism, even if it means reiterating, what they have said before. I am very glad that the few remarks I have made so far have drawn at least that much from the hon. Member.
The hon. Member has referred to uncivilised practices on the part of the emergency forces and to Draconian legislation, and he used the word "ruthless". Most of those adjectives apply in far greater degree to the campaign launched by the terrorists. That is another reason why I was amazed that the hon. Member made no reference to it. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when winding up the debate, can give the latest total of people killed or injured in Cyprus since the campaign began. The number must

now be reaching an appalling total, and most of us would like to know the latest figure.
The question of the Constitution and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two days ago falls into two parts. One is the Constitution and the other is the efforts to restore law and order. I cannot help thinking that it is up to hon. Members of this House to give the Government their full support, as was given by this House to the Government of the party opposite seven or eight years ago when faced with a similar campaign of terrorism—after all, there is not much difference in terrorism, whoever is running it—in Malaya, when a similar emergency arose.
That emergency had to be handled by the party opposite, but they did not handle it very successfully. It had been going on for three years by the time they left office and the present Government took over, and it was eventually quashed as a result of the action of this Government. It was quashed in Malaya largely because of an action of which, in a sense, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North complains in Cyprus—that is, by sending out a qualified soldier to run the campaign against the terrorists.
General Sir Gerald Templer was eminently successful in dealing with the guerilla tactics of the Chinese Communist terrorists in Malaya, and I am sure that it was for that reason that a soldier of the eminence and experience of Sir John Harding was sent out as Governor and Commander in Chief in Cyprus, in the hope that it would have a similar effect with the Eoka campaign of terrorism in the island. So far, it has not brought the results which we hoped, but I do not know what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North suggests is the remedy.
There seem to me to be only two ways of curing the trouble, either to give way to the terrorists, which, I am sure, is not the desire of hon. Members opposite or the desire of the majority of people on the island, or to introduce such measures as may be considered necessary, bearing in mind the experience that we have had in dealing with terrorist campaigns in other parts of the world, in order to stamp it out. I cannot see what other alternative there is.

Mr. Callaghan: Has the hon. Member not considered the possibility that our policy should be directed towards winning the assent and co-operation of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the island, so that the terrorists become abhorrent to them?

Mr. Russell: I am sure that the terrorists are abhorrent to the majority of Cypriots in the island, but if a campaign of fear is put into operation by the terrorists surely that is enough to deter people from co-operating, as we all hoped they would. That underlies the question of getting the co-operation of the Greek Cypriots. They know full well that if they gave information to the authorities, as has happened in so many instances, they would probably be murdered the following day. That is not an alternative policy. The fact remains that we must stamp out the terrorists before we can win the co-operation of the people.
Those are the only two possibilities that faced us, either to give in to the terrorists, which I am sure nobody wants to do, or to carry on with the campaign of trying to stamp out terrorism. After all, we were successful, after a good deal of patience and considerable time, in stamping out the terrorism in Malaya and in ending the need for an emergency in Kenya. Is there any reason why the same result should not be achieved in Cyprus if we carry on with the firmness and the patience that we have shown? Therefore, it is our duty to support Her Majesty's Government in the action which they have taken.
The announcement made two days ago that some of the Regulations have been withdrawn shows that the Government are only too willing to relax them whenever they feel able to do so. In announcing his proposals two days ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it quite clear that he, the Government and Sir John Harding deplored Regulations of this kind and were only too glad when it was found possible to relax them. We have to trust the Government in handling this matter, as we trusted them in handling the campaigns in Kenya and Malaya.
I must emphasise that I do not feel that any help is being given to the Government when hon. Members opposite make speeches of the kind which they have been making and have made today,

particularly without condemning the terrorists for their ruthless campaign of murder. The terrorists alone are the people responsible for the conditions in Cyprus today. I support every action of the Government in suppressing this murderous campaign of terrorism, and I hope that before long it will bring success.

11.47 a.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: The whole House should feel indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for the able manner in which he has introduced this debate. It must surely be a matter of regret to all who wish Cyprus well that so many hon. and right hon. Members opposite are completely unable to appreciate the realities of the situation. It surely is completely unrealistic in the middle of the twentieth century to talk about stamping out terrorism as being an effective policy. We have had enough experience in Cyprus and in other parts of the Colonial Empire to know that repression of this kind is simply a sowing of dragon's teeth and that, in fact, violence in Cyprus has increased in direct relationship to the severity of the Regulations.
We wore told that Archbishop Makarios had to be deported because he was a leading force in the terrorist movement. After he was taken away, there was a crescendo of increasing violence and terrorism in Cyprus. Hon. Members opposite cannot point to one instance in the uphappy history of Cyprus when the increase in repression has contributed to peacefulness or stability. In fact, we all know that the contrary is true.
It is unfair that every time hon. Members on this side of the House try to make constructive suggestions about the future of the island, there is what is becoming almost a parrot cry from hon. Members opposite about the question of terrorism and the implication that it is being encouraged by Members on this side of the House.

Mr. Russell: I hope I made it clear, when I said they encouraged it, that I meant they unwittingly encouraged it. I did not mean for a moment to suggest that any hon. Member wanted to encourage it.

Mrs. Jeger: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I would remind him that hon. Members on this side of the House have constantly repeated their view. I myself have condemned terrorism in Cyprus, not only from the security of these benches but in discussions in Cyprus itself, in talks which I have had with Archbishop Makarios, and when addressing Cypriots in prison and outside prison. Every time I have had an opportunity of talking to Cypriot people I have made my own abhorrence of violence absolutely clear.
It is countered in Cyprus by this answer, "Before terrorism started you did not listen to us. You did not listen to us when we put forward our proposals peaceably." The bitter truth is that since the campaign of terrorism started more time has been given than before in this House, and more space has been given in the Press than before, to considering the circumstances and policies in Cyprus, and people all over the world who had no time to spare to consider colonialism in Cyprus are now anxious about it.
That is why it is so essential that we should try to solve the problem constructively, and certainly suggestions that there is need to stamp out terrorism by increased severity are completely useless and unrealistic. We are all desperately anxious to see a new turn of events in Cyprus, but that can come about only if there is applied to this sore and sad situation an element of healing and hopefulness.
Time for this debate is brief, and I must be brief. Therefore, I shall content myself with advancing only one or two arguments. We had hoped this week that we were going to turn a corner towards a better future for Cyprus, and I myself still hope that we shall, but I am sure that nothing would help us on more to a free and candid discussion of Lord Radcliffe's proposals for Cyprus than a loosening of the emergency regulations. Whether we like it or not, we have to come to terms with the people of Cyprus if we are to produce a workable settlement.
It is most unfortunate that Lord Radcliffe's proposals should be considered at a time when the Emergency Regulations, for the major part, are still in force, because they cause the majority of the people of the island, whatever hon. Members opposite think, to feel a strong and

bitter sense of alienation from the Government and from the present Governor. The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) referred to a Motion on the Paper about the Regulations. We were specially concerned, in putting down that Motion. about the somewhat vague provisions for the extension of the use of the death penalty. My hon. Friend has dealt with that aspect very fully. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to assure us that many of the fears expressed in another place were without foundation.
However, we can go only on the words of the Regulations as they stand, and they impose the death penalty not only for carrying weapons but for
consorting or being in company with
a person who is carrying a weapon. That seems to me to be extraordinarily dangerous. What will be the impact of this Regulation on family life? Is the whole family to be executed because father has a gun? The words
consorting or being in company with
anyone carrying a weapon could be construed to mean that everybody living in the same house as one man with a gun should be executed. What about a girl who is out for a walk with a boy who, unknown to her, may have a gun in his pocket? She may be completely innocent of any complicity, but it seems that she is liable to be sentenced to death.
It is not good enough to say, "Of course, a court would not put that interpretation on the Regulations in such a case." The fact is that the Regulations say things which seem to suggest that the death penalty can be passed and carried out in Cyprus against anybody over the age of 16, even though he or she may be innocent of any complicity in terrorism, and that we are enforcing what my hon. Friend called a system which is really Draconian. The Regulations would be more understandable if they included some phrase to the effect that they applied if the person without the weapon had a prior knowledge that the person with whom he was consorting was carrying the weapon. There is, however, no such proviso.
Another Regulation which worries us is that which seems to put not only the police and the security forces but any members of the Civil Service in Cyprus


above the law. At the very time when we are hoping to help the Cypriots to understand and practise for themselves the processes of democracy that seems an extraordinary thing to do. Does that Regulation mean, for instance, that if a jeep runs over an old woman she cannot bring an action against the driver of the jeep or against the Government? Suppose, for instance, an incident occurs which is completely unconnected with the emergency, as for instance, that a postman on a bicycle knocks down a child. Does that Regulation mean that because the postman is a civil servant he cannot be sued without the permission of the Attorney-General?
In reply to a Question asked in the House the other day, the Colonial Secretary said that this Regulation was necessary because of the number of frivolous cases brought against members of the forces, so I put down a Question asking quite simply how many prosecutions had been brought by Cypriots during the emergency against the police, Armed Forces, and security officers in Cyprus. The answer was:
Nine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 162.]
Throughout the period of this emergency, which is over a year old now, there have been only nine cases in which Cypriots have used the legal processes against the police and members of the Armed Forces and security officers. I submit, therefore, that the Colonial Secretary's argument on that score is not good enough, especially when one recalls that on at least one occasion officers of the forces have been found guilty by a court in Cyprus of cruelty and of causing bodily harm to Cypriots while the officers were carrying out their duties.
It is a tribute to our forces in Cyprus that there have been so few cases of that sort. I have seen the men, many of them very young National Service men, carrying out these intolerably abhorrent tasks, which are really the worst kind of police work. It is bitterly unfair that they should be asked to do much of the work which they have to do in Cyprus. I should gladly be the first to say that I have seen then working with great tolerance and great good humour in the difficulties which the Government have put upon them. However, it is most unfortunate that the population of the island

are not able to feel that when instances of cruelty or of bullying or of accident do occur, exceptional though they may be, they have some redress. The implication is that sometimes the Cypriots may be right and that the Government are afraid that they may be right. Nothing would restore confidence among the people of Cyprus more than to feel that the police and the security forces were equal with them before the law. Surely that is not too much for them to ask?
The question of the Press has been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend. I very much hope that it will be made absolutely clear that candid, open discussion, particularly of the Radcliffe proposals, can be carried out by the journalists in Cyprus. What worries me is that to escape the penalties of the law comment in the Press must be "fair and honest", according to the Regulations. I hope that the Minister of State can help us about this matter. I want to know who is to say whether the comment is fair and honest. If there is a newspaper attack, for instance, on certain actions of the Governor, does Sir John Harding decide whether it is fair and honest? Is it for him to bring the whole of the processes of the law against the newspaper editor, processes which permit the imposition of the penalty of the closing of his newspaper?
I hope that, as in another place, we shall get news of reconsideration of these matters from the Government. We are just about to adjourn for the Christmas Recess. For many people in Cyprus it will be the second Christmas in prison of the breadwinner, the father of the family. Some hundreds of them are still without trial or without any charge being brought against them. Many of them cannot be guilty of the terrorism of the last year because they have been in prison for over a year. I hope very much, therefore, that the news that we have heard of the first instalment of releases, which I welcome, will be followed by a much larger number, and that we shall soon be able to end the detention of persons without charge or trial.
The best chance of success for Lord Radcliffe's proposals, and for a fair discussion of them, would be for the Government to take an imaginative step.


I should like to see them, from their side this time, suggesting a truce. I think that the handling of the last truce offer from the terrorists was deplorable. It would be helpful, therefore, if this time Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative in suggesting a period of truce, in bringing Archbishop Makarios back to Cyprus for talks, not only between himself and the British officials, but with other leading Cypriots. I am sure that is the only way in which there can be some turn for the better in that desperately unhappy island.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I shall detain the House for only two minutes to express the fervent hope that the Minister this morning will announce substantial amendments in such of these Emergency Regulations as it is proposed still to enforce.
The debate on this subject in another place provides one of the most devastating criticisms by eminent lawyers of a set of Regulations that the volumes of HANSARD have ever contained. The eminent authority of a former Lord Chancellor, fully conscious of his great responsibilities, was brought to bear and I agree with my hon. Friend that the reply of the Government in another place to those criticisms was extraordinary. To have it said that these criticisms would be looked at was a most remarkable and ineffective way of dealing with them.
These Regulations are a defiance of some fundamental principles of our law, namely, the principle of equality before the law and of giving discretion to judges to choose between one penalty and another. As for the incredible provision, for which I know no precedent, for putting public servants in a special position vis-à-vis the criminal law, I doubt whether even the Nazi governors in occupied territories took to themselves powers quite as Draconian as that. It will not do, and I hope that the Minister will now announce fundamental changes in these Regulations.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) —not primarily to my hon. Friend the

Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), though I am sure it will be grateful to her also—for raising this subject. I say that because we have a duty in this House—and I address this specifically through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell)—to hold the Government responsible for seeing that we do not fall below the standards that we ourselves accept as being a necessary part of the government of a free people in a free country.
I am sure that the answer which the hon. Gentleman would give me is that when one is dealing with the kind of situation that there is in Cyprus, one cannot afford to wear kid gloves but has to go right to the heart of the situation and use methods that are understood by persons who employ terrorism. Alas, this is true to some extent, but, nevertheless, I want to carry him with me, at least so far as to say that it is our duty in the House, and his duty as well as ours, to ensure that the Government do not take powers that are unnecessary and do not use them in a way that would be condemned as being unnecessary to the situation. It is these tests that my hon. Friends are applying to the Regulations that have been imposed. If the powers are too wide, if they are being improperly used, I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that we are doing no more than sinking to the level of those who are employing terrorism in Cyprus unless we speak out against them, and it is our constant duty so to speak.
I do not think that my hon. Friends need repeat that they are opposed to terrorism. I would not be persuaded or cajoled by the hon. Gentleman to drag that into every speech, because the attitude of the Labour Party on this matter is well known. We do not have to preface everything by reviewing the whole of the circumstances. Yet I must express my own opinion, as this is the first time that I have spoken in a Cyprus debate, that in my view the situation in Cyprus, and the terrorism which now exists, is the result of the bankruptcy of the policy of the Government. I do not see how historians will be able to escape that conclusion when the history of this period is written, after these events have died away.
I want to address myself particularly to the question of the Regulations concerning prosecutions brought by private persons against Government officials, which are now forbidden, I understand. I wrote to the Colonial Secretary on this matter on 8th December, as follows:
I have been disturbed to learn that allegations by reputable persons about brutality in Cyprus are not being inquired into. My information is that the allegations are principally directed against the special police and not against the ordinary police or the Criminal Investigation Department.
These investigations were made by persons of the highest repute in Cyprus, namely, a former Attorney-General, who I believe is well esteemed by the Adminitration, and another former member of the Governor's Executive Council. They have sent the Administration 30 documented cases of prima facie brutality by security forces.
I hope that all hon. Members, on whatever side of the House they sit, will agree that if reputable persons put forward documented prima facie cases, they ought to be investigated. That is what I ask should be done, because the reputation of British justice is at stake here.
Here may I interpolate to say that it is the view of the Government—because I received a reply from the Colonial Secretary yesterday—that many of these allegations are made with the deliberate intention of embarrassing the Administration and serving as Eoka propaganda. I can see the force of that, but I go on to say that, even so, there is a responsibility upon the Administration. even though it is time-wasting and even though it is frivolous, to ensure that every complaint of this nature is investigated and that those of good repute in Cyprus, lawyers of high standing, should be satisfied that the Administration is not trying to hide something.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South told us that only nine of those allegations had been made—

Mrs. L. Jeger: Nine were brought to the courts.

Mr. Callaghan: —brought to the courts during the period of the Regulations. Clearly that is not an excessive total. What troubles me about this, however,

is that although two reputable lawyers—one a former Attorney-General and one a former Member of the Executive Council—made these complaints, up to the time of my information, which is now getting a little old since some weeks have elapsed, they had not received a single reply to any one of those cases from the Governor's Administration, nor have they been able to get the evidence which they were asking for to investigate these complaint. Indeed, one can say that the only reply they have had was the introduction of this new measure which prevents prosecutions by private persons where allegations of ill-treatment by the security forces are put forward.
Some of the cases which have been sent to me would be condemned by every hon. Member, no matter what was the degree of provocation to which the members of the security forces had been subjected at any time, either in general or in particular. There are examples—I think I am not putting it too highly—of torture. I do not propose to go into the details here because that would not be fair at the present time. However, an English lawyer, Mr. Peter Benenson, who is of some reputation—he was a Labour candidate at the last General Election—tells me that as a result of his own investigations in Cyprus he is satisfied that there are at least four well-documented cases.
Mr. Benenson wrote to the Colonial Secretary about these matters on his return to England, and on 26th November the Colonial Secretary replied to him, saying:
…I know that all complaints of ill-treatment are investigated…
The right hon. Gentleman gives his reasons for thinking so; there were two cases of officers dismissed from the Service. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
It is unfortunate that Mr. Clerides did not receive an early acknowledgment of his letters but the Administration and police are under very heavy pressure at present. I am fully confident, however, that these and any other allegations of this nature will in due course be investigated and that justice will be done.
When I wrote to the Colonial Secretary, which was some time later, I asked whether he would make inquiries into the matter and give an undertaking that the Administration intended to investi-


gate the complaints. I am extremely dissatisfied with the reply which I received, because it is word for word the same reply as he gave to Mr. Benenson three weeks earlier.
Has the Colonial Secretary made any inquiry into the matter at all? Frankly, on the basis of the two letters, which are word for word, except for the final paragraph in the letter to me, a personal paragraph, I confess that I do not believe the Colonial Secretary has done so. I ask the Minister of State to undertake to make a specific inquiry, not into the allegations themselves, but into the question whether the Administration in Cyprus is inquiring into the allegations? Has the Administration interviewed Mr. Clerides and Mr. Pavlides, who have put the allegations forward, and, if so, when can we expect some answer to be made to the very serious allegations, which amount to torture of persons by members of the British special police?
It is not only Cypriot lawyers who are concerned about this matter. There are English lawyers who are concerned about the reputation of British justice and the repute of Britain in the matter. That is why I press the Minister specifically on the point. I ask him also to contact the Governor in order to restore the rights of private prosecution, because I know of no other way in which the rights of the citizen can be protected in a situation like this.
I leave the matter there, except to say that there is a Commission on Human Rights which has been set up to investigate these complaints, and the international jurists are themselves concerned about it. Rather than have it dragged out of us in this way, I would sooner our own Administration investigated the matters and decided either that they were ill-founded or that there was something in them. On the basis of the evidence so far in front of me, I would not dismiss the allegations as frivolous. They are far too serious for that. If what I suggest were done, we should know that Britain's reputation for doing the honourable and proper thing in a matter of this sort would be unsullied. Until these allegations are answered, we are under a cloud of suspicion.
My hon. Friends who have spoken have welcomed the relaxations in respect

of the Regulations in Cyprus, which are extremely repressive. I also welcome the Governor's decision to allow persons to visit the Archbishop in the Seychelles. I am certain that those are steps in the right direction. I hope that the Constitution will be thoroughly and fairly examined by everyone before they reach conclusions, and I also hope that the Government will adhere to what the Colonial Secretary said in reply to a Question which I put to him earlier, that he will give the greatest possible attention to suggestions from hon. Members and people from Cyprus, because, as has been pointed out, the situation has changed since Lord Radcliffe was given his instructions last July.
If the Minister does not believe me, he need not accept that from me. I would ask him to direct his attention to The Times of today's date, in which it is stated:
It cannot be emphasised too often that nothing can be quite the same after Suez. Every issue of international relations, diplomacy, politics, and economics has to be rethought.
I would say in all seriousness to the Minister that this applies to our special British position in Cyprus so far as British interests in the Middle East are concerned.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to close his eyes, during the weeks that lie ahead, to the possibility of reconsidering our position in Cyprus in relation to it being a British base. It may well be that a solution to the problem lies along the lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Also, if he is willing to reconsider the Constitution at all as a basis for negotiations, will he consider some of the very wide powers which the Governor is given in relation to internal security? I do not think it is impossible for us to secure a situation under a Constitution in Cyprus which would be like that of Malta, where the Government hold responsibility for internal security, and where the relationship of the Governor to the Prime Minister—in this case, it would be to the Chief Minister—much more closely resembles the position in this country.
I urge the Government to be flexible in their approach. There is a great responsibility upon all of us here, but particularly upon the Government, for


the Government have one more chance to solve the problem in Cyprus. I hope that we shall take the chance. None of us can relish the thought that men and women are being shot down in cold blood in that island today, but that will go on unless we give them the leadership and the political institutions which will enable them to set aside the terrorists. The leadership, whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, will come from the Archbishop. The institutions can come from us if we are flexible, broadminded and tolerant in our approach. I beg the Government not to throw away their last chance.

12.17 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Maclay): I was very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said some very wise things about giving the Radcliffe proposals every possible chance that they can have. I had hoped that something like that would have come earlier in the debate. I am very glad that there was this wise and balanced appeal, with which we all agree, that every possible chance should be given in an unbiassed and unprejudiced atmosphere for quiet and steady consideration of the proposals.
The debate has gone a good deal wider than I expected. It began on the new Emergency Regulations. It developed into a Cyprus debate. For a short time towards the end, I thought it would become a Suez debate. The result is that my reply may have to be rather scrappy, because I want to answer as many as possible of the detailed questions that have been asked rather than to make a carefully studied reply, which, in the circumstances is simply not possible.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that it is the duty of the Opposition to question anything about which they are doubtful and to put forward their own ideas, but I do appeal to hon. Members opposite, above all on a subject like Cyprus, when they are speaking to think the whole time of what effect their words will have in an area where people are being killed and shot and where murders are occurring.
I am not saying for one second that hon. Members opposite incite trouble. Of course they do not. I know that they hate this thing as much as we do. However, I have just been on a long trip to various parts of the world, and among other things that impressed me, in the Colonies in particular, was the meticulous way in which debates, particularly Adjournment debates, are studied in the part of the world to which the Adjournment debate refers. Very often remarks are taken out of context.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said that there was no reason every time we spoke of Cyprus to condemn terrorists, because it is well known that the attitude of the Opposition is that they condemn terrorists. But when they make speeches rather like that of the hon. Member's attack on the Governor and the other things he said, they will be quoted in the context of the speech and it will appear to many that, if not condoning terrorism, the Opposition are making no active efforts to stop it. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that and the importance of making it clear every time we discuss this subject that we all want to get this disastrous and tragic killing stopped in that island and that that is above all possible question of party advantage or party discussion. It is the duty of all of us, to have that in mind above all—and of course we do not want to stop criticism.
The impression I have gained from some of the opening speeches is that the three new Regulations are very grave additions to the Emergency Regulations already existing. I wonder whether that is keeping the matter in proportion. The death penalty alterations were made necessary by a change in the methods of Eoka. In the weeks immediately preceding the introduction of the Regulations, the tempo of murders had increased. The murders were increasingly wanton and indiscriminate, which was evidence of the pressure the existing Regulations were exerting on Eoka.
A considerable number of young people have been employed by Eoka, not only to do the dirty work, but to carry away weapons and to assist murderers to escape and hide. The new Regulations are a counter to these new tactics.
There had been a change in tactics from a concentration on the security forces to


attacks on expatriates walking down a street who had no reason to expect any form of attack. There was an absolute necessity for some change. I believe that we ought to back the Governor completely in his decision to alter the Regulations in that way. He thought it was necessary to combat the new tactics of Eoka and the possibility of an intensification of Eoka's activities, which was to be expected about the time it looked as though the Cyprus issue might be brought before the United Nations. It has been made clear by past history that there are occasions when one can expect an intensification of activity and this was one of them.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Does that mean there have been no amendments, in spite of admissions of ambiguity and obscurity by a Minister in another place?

Mr. Maclay: The position at the moment is that, in the light of the debate in another place, the Regulations are being carefully examined, but I can report nothing further than that at this time. The Governor proposed the new Regulations, they were approved in outline by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they were not submitted to the Law Officers here. That is the technical position.

Mr. Callaghan: It is more than a fortnight since the debate in the other place was held. Considering the gravity of the matters with which we are dealing—the death penalty for a person carrying arms is one example—surely we can expect an early announcement from the Government?

Mr. Maclay: I will deal with that one straight away, because that does not require any redrafting. It is the question of giving an explanation of consorting. That is the point. I am advised that that is the technical answer. It was said that a person found in company with another one possessing a weapon would be sentenced to death. The position is that the circumstances would have to raise a reasonable presumption that the person accompanying the one carrying arms was involved in terrorism. The actual wording is:
… in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that he intends, or is about to act, or has recently acted, with such other

person in a manner prejudicial to public safety or the maintenance of public order…
That is a full answer to the question raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger). She assumed that if a sister was walking along with a brother, not knowing that the brother had a weapon in his pocket, she would be liable to the death penalty. I cannot believe that that would be so under the words I have just read.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Regulations were not submitted to the Law Officers here. Were they examined in the legal department of the Colonial Office?

Mr, Maclay: The approval here was in outline, not in detail at this stage. That is what I am advised.

Mr. Ede: Is the answer to my question therefore "No"?

Mr. Maclay: It must be "No." I will take further advice on that. I understand that the position is that the Regulations were approved in outline and that the detailed drafting was not done in London and has not so far been seen here.
Questions were asked about the Regulation dealing with the Press. Many points have been raised and it is necessary to pick up the matters one by one. The whole point about the change in the Control of Publications Order is that at the end of October the Governor reported that there had recently been a large amount of publicity material consisting mainly of general and often anonymous allegations of misconduct against the security forces. He wished to prohibit the sale and circulation of such material which was having the effect of hindering the prosecution of the security campaign and befouling relations between the security forces and the Cyprus public. There was a series of publications which could easily have had that effect and had had it. The Regulations were accord-ingly made.
I had better give the gist of them in detail, because I understand there has been some misunderstanding. The provisions of the Regulations are that the Governor may make an Order prohibiting the sale or circulation of any publication if it appears to him that it contains


matter prejudicial to the security campaign; inciting to violence; likely to create hostility or ill-will between sections of the population or between the public and the Security Forces.
I think no one will disagree that those are objectives which are quite proper for the Governor, if these publications were adding to the trouble and a number of people were being killed.

Mr. K. Robinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the last of those three conditions is reasonable? It is fantastically wide.

Mr. Maclay: It is, as I said, likely to create hostility or ill will between sections of the population or between the public and the Security Forces. There is no reason to believe that the Regulations will be administered unwisely. The Governor has shown throughout the time he has been in Cyprus extraordinary care, wisdom and caution in using his powers, and it is most unfair and wrong to imply any charge that these powers will be used unwisely.
Hon. Members opposite have forgotten and have not mentioned the Advisory Committee provided under the new Regulations. It was not there before, under the old Regulations. There is a right of appeal to the Governor, through the new Advisory Committee, against orders made under these Regulations.

Mr. Callaghan: The Regulation which the right hon. Gentleman regards as satisfactory says:
The Governor may in his absolute discretion …prohibit the sale and circulation of any publication if it appears to him…that it might be prejudicial to the successful prosecution of measures taken or to be taken to forward the termination of the state of emergency in the Colony.
Can one possibly have anything wider than that? An attack made in the Press upon the Governor in the exercise of his authority could be construed in this way. It becomes an almost totalitarian régime.

Mr. Maclay: No; it must depend entirely on how the Regulations are administered. If the hon. Gentleman can produce cases where they have been administered in a totalitarian way and not in the interests of the preservation of order and life, he may have a case, but one cannot assume that matters will be

handled in that way when there is no evidence to justify it.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a most important matter. The Minister really tempts me. I refrain from quoting cases only because I want to give the Colonial Secretary the opportunity of investigating for himself. If he will look at the proposed prosecution against Mr. Foley for a moment, he will see that he is bound to assume that Mr. Foley is being prosecuted for making a political attack upon the policy of the Governor.

Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to discuss that prosecution, because it is still sub judice, but I shall come back to the other question raised before I sit down.
I must now turn very briefly to the question of the protection of public officers. That raises an important point, about which there seem to be some misunderstandings. The purpose of the new Regulations is to prevent malicious and vexatious prosecutions against members of the security forces. There is no question of denying justice or of placing the security forces above the law. The Attorney-General having given his consent, proceedings can be instituted in the usual way. Hon. Members really must not make reflections upon the impartiality of the Attorney-General, as was implied in one or two remarks made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. He said that the Government would be judge and jury in its own case. That is not entirely without precedent in matters of this kind. But we can be certain that the Attorney-General will exercise his duties under these Regulations with complete impartiality, free from any political bias.
The reason for introducing these Regulations was simply that lawyers who purported to act for persons wishing to prosecute had recently made a number of applications for the names and other particulars of members of the security forces, in circumstances which gave the Governor ground for believing that the lives of those members would be endangered by the provision of such detailed information.
In this connection two main points arise. First there is the question whether it is purely vexatious.

Mr. K. Robinson: They are all vexatious to the Governor.

Mr. Maclay: Not in the sense that one normally uses the word "vexatious". Secondly, a new danger can arise in relation to this technique of lawyers trying to obtain names through instituting proceedings. I must make it clear that civil proceedings are still permissible. I think that that deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South.
I am told that the appeal against the Limassol fine could not have been stopped by the new Regulations. The technical position is that nothing in the Public Officers Protection Regulations prevents a civil action—and the Limassol litigation was a civil action. Therefore, the latest Regulations would not have altered or affected the Limassol action. The decision to abandon collective punishment had nothing to do with the Limassol case, and it is a great pity that that implication was put upon it. That judgment turned entirely upon the question whether the Regulations had been properly complied with. Their legality was not prejudiced.
I have covered a good many of the questions which have been asked. They are all highly technical, and I am no lawyer. It really needs a lawyer at this Box for this operation. If there are any other important questions which I have not dealt with, I shall be glad to do so later.
I regret that, at a moment when we are trying to have this new Constitution considered wisely, and when the Governor

has made very definite and positive concessions—I could go through them, but we are already over our time—the opening speeches did nothing to help the people in Cyprus to feel that Her Majesty's Government are making a very serious and determined effort to encourage them to look carefully and closely at the draft proposals. In that respect, I welcomed the speech made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
The Governor himself, recognising the need to improve the atmosphere, has made very positive relaxations in the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. K. Robinson: I said quite clearly that although I thought the Constitution was less favourable than the one which was turned down in the March negotiations, I nevertheless thought that it should be accepted, and that it would be reasonable for the Greek-Cypriot people to accept it and try to make it work.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, but was that the most helpful thing that he could say about this—that it was less favourable than the previous Constitution?

Mr. Robinson: It is true.

Mr. Maclay: It may be true, in the hon. Member's opinion, but I regret that it should have been said at a time when we want to give every possible fair wind to these proposals.
I welcome a debate of this kind, dealing with matters which need explaining, and it has been useful in that it has enabled me to clear up certain misunderstandings—but I regret some of the things which have been said.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DEFENCE RECOMMENDATIONS)

12.36 p.m.

Sir James Hutchison: In this interesting series of debates which it is the custom to have immediately before a Parliamentary Recess, the second scene shifts from Cyprus to the stage of Western European Union. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not bear me a grudge for having been the instrument for dragging him here on Friday, 21st December, and probably making him lunchless and partly holiday-less, but the points which I wish to bring to his attention outweigh the importance of lunches and holidays. Events are undoubtedly drawing this country closer and closer to the Western European nations. Inexorably, the happenings of the last few weeks have had that tendency, and it is one which will continue.
Western Europe is represented, Parliamentarywise, by two bodies which can discuss its affairs—the Council of Europe, comprising 16 nations, and Western European Union, comprising seven nations, and differing from the Council of Europe in that it is responsible for the defence of the West. That means that the Western European Union Assembly is the only European body which can bring to the notice of the public the defence situation in Europe, and can educate and persuade the public that what is being done is sufficient and satisfactory.
Western European Union was set up after the failure of the European Defence Community. Although it has responsibility in the matter of defence, it also has other responsibilities. Article VIII of the Paris Treaty says:
for the purpose of … promoting the unity and encouraging the progressive integration of Europe.
During the debates of the Assembly of Western European Union, held at Strasbourg, defence questions were prominently in our minds. That was natural enough, because we regard defence as one of our main responsibilities. Many rumours were floating about at that time, rumours that the United States and ourselves might be withdrawing some of our forces from Europe, rumours that the German contribution to defence was being drastically cut, and there was very considerable anxiety.
Clearly reorganisation was in the wind. That is very understandable. As new and more modern weapons appear, always costing more, as the demand for greater mobility of forces increases and as the need to arm forces with atomic tactical weapons becomes apparent, so the burden of defence costs is constantly growing, and it is clear that reorganisation of the contribution by the various component nations becomes necessary.
That that should be undertaken at once is the first theme in the first of the three Recommendations emanating from the Western European Assembly which we are considering today, and it was sent to all the countries which go to build up Western European Union. It recommended that this reorganisation should be undertaken at once, and it asked that a clear lead should be given to the nations comprising Western European Union, both by their own Governments and through Western European Union itself. I am aware—I think everybody must be aware—that there have been discussions taking place in Paris over the last week or so, and I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he may be able to give us some information of the trend of the direction of thoughts there.
The second point was the theme, or request, or almost demand, that no decision should be taken by any one of the nations unilaterally. It implored any nation, before altering the strength and status of its forces, to consult those who were virtually in alliance with it because, if that was not done, confidence must be destroyed, and as we become closely knit—as I am sure we have—the confidence of one nation in another becomes vital. The third proposal that is made in this first Recommendation is that substantial ground forces should be kept in being, and that the German contribution shall become effective as soon as possible.
These are profund subjects each of which could well occupy a full debate, and in a short Adjournment debate it is really not possible or desirable to delve into such complicated questions. All that I would ask my hon. Friend on these two themes, and indeed on all the themes—and much thought was given to those recommendations before in fact they are sent out—is that we should be assured that the recommendations are given the weight which they deserve by


those who are undertaking the negotiations in Paris, by the Ministers or representatives who go there, and that the recommendations are closely studied and given, as I say, the weight which they deserve, as coming from seven countries.
I wonder when and how the results of these conversations will be known? That leads me to the second Recommendation which is, in a sense, the crux of our problem. In the Treaty setting up Western European Union, it was given certain specific tasks mentioned in the Treaty. One of these is the Control Agency over armaments which is charged with seeing that the agreement relating to armaments of which Germany has renounced the manufacture shall be respected, and that other countries who have agreed that they shall not hold certain types of arms in excess of their requirements shall not exceed those requirements.
That is a specific task of Western European Union, consequently of the Council of Ministers and consequently of the Assembly. Then the Council wisely set up, as I think it was perfectly entitled to do, a body known as the Standing Armaments Committee, which is charged with promoting the standardisation of weapons. On those two counts, there is no doubt and no dispute. We have been given reasonable information on these two themes which are regarded by the Council of Ministers as being an entitlement which we have.
The Treaty also says that W.E.U. is to "strengthen peace and security." That must lead inevitably to a general responsibility for defence as a whole, for otherwise what does the word "security" mean? We cannot assure ourselves that we have security if we are only examining one little sector of the defence system which goes to make up the security. Therefore, while there is no grievance or doubt between us and the Council of Ministers about the flow of information on these specific points, on the general defence picture, I am afraid that the same does not apply.
It is part of our task in the Assembly to regard defence as I have tried to show. One might almost argue that it was set up for a special purpose and Ministers have agreed—and I think almost every one who is connected with this situation has

agreed—that it is of the greatest importance that public opinion should be kept informed of what is going on and be guided and allowed to see the wisdom of the decisions that are taken.
How can that be done through the medium of Western European Union, the only Parliamentary body of a European character that can do it and discuss the matter of defence, when we are not given the information on which to come to our judgment? On occasion, the Council has been good enough to meet the committee charged with defence matters. It was clear in the discussions which took place that the Council was interpreting the Treaty in a very narrow manner. So it came about that many of the questions which we asked, which were considered to be reasonable questions, received no answer, so we were hampered in coming to wise conclusions.
The argument used to justify this attitude of giving us information on a narrow sector but not on all the broad system of defence is that Ministers are responsible only to their own Governments. It is true that to avoid duplication of work under the Treaty, W.E.U. accepts N.A.T.O. as the specialist on defence matters and on the forces, and S.H.A.P.E. and N.A.T.O. as being the source through which it will be able to get its military information, but because, in order to avoid duplication. it accepts N.A.T.O. as the military agency, in my view that does not dissociate it from the responsibility of satisfying itself that N.A.T.O. is functioning properly—that N.A.T.O. is on its toes.
If, as has been said to me, we want, through the W.E.U. Council, more information which N.A.T.O. can give, that information must go to the whole of the 16 nations which are participants in N.A.T.O., let that be so. I do not see that it matters. If seven nations want this information which is necessary for a proper judgment of defence, I do not see why they should not get it
It is agreed by the Council that the Western European Assembly and its committees are entitled to question matters brought up in the annual report which Ministers are charged under the Treaty with submitting to Western European Union. Let us suppose that the report contains the minimum of information


To exaggerate what I mean, suppose that in the annual report the Ministers choose to tell us that they have spent a lot of time in discussing matters and finally came to the conclusion there ought to be a Western European Union flag and the design would be this, that or the other. Is that all that we, who have a responsibility for general defence, are to be allowed to question the Ministers about, merely because that is all they have put into their report? It would be a ridiculous situation, and in defence matters the Western European Union Assembly would no longer have any function.
We are agreed with the Ministers that the Council and we both have responsibility for control of armaments and standardisation of weapons. I believe we are agreed that the very demanding clause in the Treaty of Western European Union that any one nation will at once go to the help of any of the members attacked requires a special plan, a plan which I do not believe has yet been evolved, because N.A.T.O. does not make that same demand. N.A.T.O. says—and it is in conformity with American requirements, I understand—that before military action can be approved it has to be approved in the United States and that there should be consultation. I agree that the consultation and the immediate action under those dire circumstances might very nearly be contemporaneous, but they cannot be quite contemporaneous. Here is a Treaty laying down that there shall be a plan evolved that if any one nation is attacked the other six shall go to its assistance. I believe there is no detailed plan giving effect to that now. I believe that in principle the Council is in agreement with us that we have an entitlement to ask that and to know about it.
If the argument that the Ministers are responsible only to their Governments and in no wise responsible to us is a good argument, how comes it that they can change that argument and say, "We are responsible to you in part. We are responsible to you on control of armaments and standardisation of weapons and this immediate plan, but we are not responsible in any other way"? If the argument is good that they are responsible only to their own Governments, they should not be responsible to us for anything at all. I contend that if they are responsible in part, and if

we are responsible for the defence of Europe as a whole, they must be responsible to us for all aspects of it.
We have no desire to duplicate anything that N.A.T.O. is doing, but N.A.T.O. has no assembly yet. I dare say the clay will come when it will get one. We must look to the Council for information which S.H.A.P.E. thinks that it is able to give us as to the progress and as to the satisfactory situation of the armaments and forces of Europe. May I say, in passing, that the Supreme Commander has been extremely helpful to us on occasions when we have had a chance of meeting him and talking to him?
What are we asking, my hon. Friend may say. As an alternative to trying to amend the Treaty, we ask that the Treaty as it stands shall be interpreted less narrowly and that we shall be given answers to reasonable questions. My hon. Friend might say, "What do you mean by reasonable questions?" I would define that broadly in this way. We would have no right to ask a question which a Minister of one of the component nations was not prepared to answer in his own Parliament. We have no desire to burrow into the realms which are curtained off by security.
There is no time to deal at length with the third Recommendation of the trio we are discussing today. That deals with the question of Britain's participation in some form of European atomic organisation, and goes on to emphasise the importance of having watertight control of the atomic materials which could be used in the manufacture of weapons or for civilian use. In passing. I would say that there are two agencies likely to have that responsibility. The first concerns civilian use of atomic material and the control of fissile material which will be in the hands of, and controlled by, Euratom or O.E.E.C. On the weapons side, the control organisation for armaments is responsible for any weapons or any ammunition which has a nuclear component.
There we have one body concerned with the control of fissile material when it has reached the weapon stage, and another body concerned with it when it is in the earlier stages and going to flow into civilian use. It was our view that there ought to be one organisation, not two.


With two organisations, however close their liaison might be, there is a chance—a possibility—of a gap, and a bit of nuclear material might be used for a purpose for which it was not intended. We should remember, Mr. Speaker, that a piece of nuclear material which you could hold in the palm of your hand, as I have held a bit of plutonium, could blow up quite a large portion of London. It is easy to handle in the sense of being able to extract it from the proper channel and use it in a way which was never intended. We ask the Council to study the problem of the position, the manufacture, and use of atomic weapons and atomic materials, and let us have a report on it.
I should like to emphasise what I said earlier. Recent events have drawn us closer, especially to the Western European Union nations. On many points our interests coalesce. For example, how completely identified are the interests in Middle East oil of these seven nations whose whole life depends upon the arrival of that oil in Europe? Their interests in the Suez Canal are also identical. The vital interests of these countries differ from those of the United States of America and certain other countries in the sense that the United States could carry on relatively quite happily, even if the Suez Canal never reopened.
Here is this pull and tug upon the seven countries, with Britain among them, to get closer and to talk with the same voice on vital interests of the kind that I have been indicating. A sympathetic, and indeed a helpful, attitude by the Government and by Ministers can only help to cement the good will between those nations, which is becoming so vital.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) for raising this important subject on the Adjournment, and also for the very informative and interesting speech he has made. I believe a great deal of what the hon. Member said would be common ground to both sides of the House. I know that when he spoke of the dangers of unilateral action among allies he stirred a warm echo on these benches.
I am bound to say, however, that as his speech proceeded and I thought again about the Recommendations of Western European Union, I felt increasingly critical because the speech and the Recommendations seemed to me to take too little account of the extraordinary changes which have taken place in Europe during the last months. It seemed to me that the Government and the House need to take a very fresh look at the whole purpose of Western European Union and N.A.T.O. in the new situation. Some of the Recommendations to which the hon. Member referred seemed the kind of Recommendations one could have made at any time in the post-war period and not to be sufficiently adjusted to the fresh situation which faces us.
I hope the House will not think me guilty of under-rating the importance of Western European Union. Indeed, I had the privilege of playing a small part in founding Western European Union and N.A.T.O. No one was keener than I on the conception of solidarity and military integration of the Western countries. I am tremendously struck by the difference in circumstances at the height of the cold war, in 1948, when we founded N.A.T.O. and the circumstances today in Europe.
In 1948, Communism was sweeping westwards. One country after another was succumbing; the Stalinist terror was in full swing in Eastern Europe, and in a number of Western European countries, not only in Italy and France, but even in Greece, the danger of internal revolt was very serious indeed at that time. Even in Western Germany, a number of Western Germans were reassuring themselves with the East German Communists because they were afraid that the tide of Communism would overwhelm their country.
In those days, we had no room for flexibility in our policy in Europe. There was only one thing we could do—get together and stick together against what was thrown at us. The main purposes of Western Union then were, of course, to keep the Red Army out of Western Europe and to give such confidence and unity to those countries such as France, Italy, Western Germany and Greece, as would enable them to overcome the internal threat from Communism.
It was for this purpose that we built up this integrated force armed with conventional weapons and lined it along the Iron Curtain in Europe. On the whole, it worked and was helpful. Though those two purposes stay, of course—the purposes of keeping the Red Army out of Europe and giving confidence to Italy, France and other countries—the circumstances today are very different indeed and must lead to a change in our priorities, which I did not find reflected in the speech of the hon. Member for Scotstoun.
Today, of course, there is no threat of internal Communism in Greece and Western Europe. The danger of Communist revolt in France and Italy has faded. Similarly, the threat of the Red Army sweeping westwards has faded since we formed N.A.T.O. The Red Army is too busy trying to hold what it has got to be seriously thinking of expansion westwards. Above all, since then the nature of weapons themselves has changed and today both sides in Europe are armed with technical atomic weapons.
It was most noticeable during the Suez crisis that the Soviet Union did not threaten Britain that the Red Army would sweep westwards and wipe out the troops of Western Europe. It threatened that it would drop rockets on us without any need for military activity in Europe at all. Equally significant, when General Gruenther most properly and most timely made his counter-threat, he did not threaten that the troops of Western Europe would sweep eastwards. On the contrary, he said that there would be a counter bombardment by rockets on the Soviet Union, and in the same week photographs were published showing American submarines with rocket-guided missiles.
All these vital changes have taken place in the European sphere since we built up N.A.T.O. and Western Union, and today we should be less concerned with keeping the Red Army out of Western Europe and more concerned about getting it out of Eastern Europe. That is the real priority which we should have today, and we should be less concerned with having conventional armies stretched out along the Iron Curtain and more concerned with building up a cheap and economic deterrent force armed with tactical atomic weapons somewhere on the Continent of Europe.

Sir J. Hutchison: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that what I was pressing for was that a reorganisation should take place along the lines advocated by the hon. Gentleman. But what we are asking for is not only that reorganisation should take place, but that we should be informed of the result. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should be so informed.

Mr. Mayhew: There is a good deal of common ground here, and I agree with the hon. Member's point about information. Whether we are in agreement about the maintenance of conventional arms in Europe is more doubtful.
I hope that a lot of what I am saying is common ground between us, but we have to realise today that, unlike in 1948, Communism is on the defensive in Europe. The slogan in Europe today is the slogan of free elections. That is the slogan which captures the imagination of the masses—free elections, civil liberty, an end to the police State and national freedom. These are all the objectives of Western democracy. Such slogans today are revolutionary in content.
For years we have been fighting this ideological struggle against Communism and, suddenly and unexpectedly, we find ourselves the victors in Europe. Western democracy in Europe is the victor today in the ideological struggle against Communism. Whatever political difficulties any Western European countries may have in the Middle East, Western democracy in Europe is in an extremely powerful position today.
I sometimes feel that when we are in a powerful position there are dangers about pressing one's opponent too far and squeezing him too hard. There are times when one gets into a very good political situation when it is not wise to squeeze the other man to the utmost or to drive him to policies of desperation.
The point I want the Minister to answer—it may be rather a wide point, but I hope that he will bear it in mind when he replies—is whether these great changes should not lead to a changed conception about the real priorities in N.A.T.O., and, in particular, whether N.A.T.O.'s policies should not be more adjusted to getting the Red Army out of Eastern Europe.
We discussed this the other day, and I do not want to go into it in too great detail now, but I was struck by the verbatim report of the speech of Mr. Shepilov during the Hungarian debate in the United Nations, which I do not think has yet been quoted in this House. While I agree that what Mr. Shepilov said is unacceptable, I should like to quote it to the House. He said:
If the Western Powers withdrew all their troops from Western Germany and closed down their military, air and naval bases in foreign territories, the Soviet Union would simultaneously and immediately withdraw all her troops from the countries in which they are stationed under the Warsaw Treaty.
Though this suggestion is unacceptable, I agree, it is a striking idea. What would have been totally unacceptable to us before today has certain attractions. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe would be a political and military asset of incomparable value to the West, not merely because the Red Army would go farther away from us but, of course, because the repudiation of Communism which would automatically follow in all these countries would not merely ruin the Soviet attack on democracy in Europe, hamstring the Soviet Union's political belief there, but the impact in Asia and the Middle East would be absolutely overwhelming.
We want the Government to show a greater readiness to probe deeper into what the Russians mean along these lines. Of course, it is unacceptable to withdraw our troops or American troops from the Continent. The Russians may not mean any of this at all. I quite agree that the Government are quite right to be sceptical about it, but it is quite plain that the pressure on the Soviet Union to make this kind of statement about withdrawing the Red Army from the satellite countries is enormous.
The Soviet Union has been terribly tempted to make this statement at this time, whether or not it means it. I quite agree with all that. But another explanation is possible. It is possible that the Russians realise that they cannot go on in Eastern Europe as they are going on now. It is possible they realise that, disastrous as withdrawal would me, trying to hold down Europe by tanks and guerilla warfare would be more disastrous. There is evidence that some

Soviet leaders are thinking along these lines.
There is no other way to account for the hesitations of Soviet policy in Hungary and Poland. It may be that the issues are balanced, and I should like the Minister to reassure us that the West w ill encourage the trend of thought which appears to exist in the Soviet Union in favour of cutting their losses in Eastern Europe. We cannot be sure how the issue will go, but at least we could consult our allies, and discuss with the Soviet Union a declaration of neutrality about Hungary and the reciprocal withdrawal of troops either side of the Iron Curtain.
The Government may argue that this would disrupt Western European Union, that it would disrupt N.A.T.O., whose morale is not very high at present. I do not suggest that we should do anything without consulting our N.A.T.O. allies, and if we did not find in N.A.T.O. support for this line of thought, I agree with the hon. Member for Scotstoun that we should drop it immediately.
Nevertheless, it would be dangerous to assume that we can reunite Western Union and N.A.T.O. on the old pre-Suez, pre-Hungary basis, as, I rather think, the hon. Member seemed to suggest. I do not think that we can do that. I do not think that Britain can afford to make the contribution she was making under that policy. I do not think that we can get the Germans really to play a full part and I doubt whether the United States is willing to go back to that pre-Suez, pre-Hungary policy. There are, of course, risks in having two armies facing each other on the East-West frontier in Germany. Those risks are quite obvious, and I need not go into them.
Some say that this spirit of revolt is temporary, but I believe that not only is the spirit of revolt against Communism not temporary in Eastern Europe, but that it will not be confined to Eastern Europe at all. People say that it is simply nationalism in Eastern Europe and, therefore, that it will not spread to the Soviet Union. I no longer believe that. There are increasing signs of unrest in the Soviet Union itself. It is only commonsense, if we follow the political developments there—the debunking of Stalin—that there must be discontent, criticism and unrest in the Soviet Union.
We have had divisions and hesitations in the Soviet leadership in the last few months. There is no question that there have been large desertions of Soviet troops in Hungary. From Lithuania we have had, not newspaper or refugee reports, but official Communist statements about the unrest there. There are completely reliable reports of strikes in famous Soviet factories, and many signs of increasing political disloyalty among professional, technical, and academic people, and especially among the students.
I have had many contacts with these circles during the past two years, and I think that the extent of political discontent there is very much underestimated in this country at the present time. Even to foreigners, some of these people show a surprising degree of frankness. I recall writing an article for the Moscow Literary Gazette about six months ago. I was invited to write this article on the future of cultural relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, rather to my surprise.
I wrote a very polite and friendly article but stating nevertheless the British point of view, such as the fact that delegations were no substitute for genuine fresh contacts. After a bit of prompting, it was published in the Moscow Literary Gazette. I had written an article of about a thousand words, and alongside it was written an official disclaimer of about eleven hundred words. Nevertheless, this is progress. But the point is that a short while afterwards, I met a distinguished member of the Moscow intelligentsia who said. "I should like to tell you that I read your polemic in the Moscow Literary Gazette. I should like to assure you that I entirely agree with what you said, and disagree with the official view."
It is a small point, but I do beg the House to realise that there is evidence of a completely reliable kind that the students, for instance, of Moscow and Leningrad universities are not merely bitterly critical of the Soviet political dictatorship, but have voiced their feelings openly and have even thrown out their own political leaders. They still think of themselves as Marxists, but their demands are the same as those of all who revolt against tyranny, namely, for

genuine democratic control of Government. In a democracy that would be of no importance, but in the Soviet Union it is of considerable significance.
My view is that resistance to the régime inside the Soviet Union is much more widespread and bitter than is generally realised. As in Hungary, the students and the industrial workers are taking the lead. The political situation there is full of dynamite. Things cannot stay as they are; those people must get either more freedom or more tyranny, and it is most vital to the interests of the West that we should ease the position of those leaders wishing to lead towards further liberalisation.
These are vastly important political changes, and it is only against this background that we can really work out a defence policy for the West. In the admirable speech made by the hon. Member, I did slightly regret that there was a lack of the sense of opportunity in the extraordinary and, I think, welcome changes taking place on the political front in Europe today.

1.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I should like to say how glad I am to see my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air sitting on the Front Bench. It is most satisfactory that that Service Ministry should pay attention to this particular debate.
I have been most interested in what the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has been saying. There is a very distinct parallel between his speech and what I myself am about to say. With a very great deal of what he has said. I am in entire agreement, but I would utter just one word of caution. These reciprocal agreements with the Soviet are fine, if we are sure that they are to be reciprocal all along the line. Unless we can have such an assurance, they are worthless.
I want to emphasise, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), the Western European Union's responsibility for defence, and therefore, the necessity for a very much closer liaison with N.A.T.O., so that our Western European Union Assembly can be properly informed on matters of defence, particularly at such a time as this, when there must be so much change of emphasis.
Having said that, I want to confine the rest of my remarks to the first section of Recommendation No. 5, made to the Council of Ministers, which reads:
That a decision concerning the nature of the reorganisation of Western defensive forces should be taken in the immediate future and that a clear lead be given to public opinion in this matter, both by the national governments and by the organs of Western European Union of which this is a fundamental responsibility.
The most important words are "immediate future", and the "clear lead" which is to be given to public opinion.
I believe that we have really got past the stage where there should have been a reappraisal of what our defence responsibilities are, what we are able to carry out, and what our objectives are in this matter. To start with, we have got to continue with the established idea of the trip-wire somewhere near the Eastern border of Western Europe. We have got to have some alarm system. We must have something to identify aggression—and it must be a trip-wire, not a thread of cotton. At the same time, it must be no more than a trip-wire, for anything more than that would be wasteful of our resources.
The assumption, once the trip-wire has been tripped, is that massive retaliation starts. I do not like the expression "massive retaliation". It smacks too much of doing the same thing as the other fellow has done, only in the opposite direction. What we want is immediate punishment and correction, and for that we have got to have heavy and accurate fire-power with extreme mobility. That is where I think the graduated deterrent, the whole gamut of atomic tactical weapons, comes in.
In that respect I am rather critical of the present conception, which seems to die rather hard, that we must have vast numbers of armoured divisions. The trouble with a tank is that it moves exceedingly slowly to be of much use. In consequence, its speed of dispersal, or the speed of dispersal of a concentration of tanks, in the event of attack is slow.
I remember just over a year ago watching an exercise in Germany where tanks had to be transported across a very small river, and I was astonished at the paraphernalia that was required and the complete disorganisation of an otherwise

orderly advance which occurred in order to get these large fighting vehicles across a comparatively small river.
Then there is the question of the range of the tank. I refer not to the range of its guns but to the distance it travels before it needs major maintenance. How long will its tracks last before they have to be taken off and replaced or overhauled? Then there are the tank transporting vehicles to be considered. I am certain that we have reached the point where we must consider very seriously not only whether we can afford these large numbers of expensive weapons, but also whether they are really of any practical use in combatting the sorts of dangers which we have to meet in the modern world.
We have got to remember that the Russians—and, after all, they are likely to be our enemy—have a tremendous number of advantages. If the danger to Western European Union is to be met, the fighting will take place on ground which probably is of no concern whatever to the Russians. The destruction will take place most probably in Western Germany, if such a catastrophe should occur, and certainly in other countries, like the satellites, which we really do not wish to harm or damage.
Is it surprising, therefore, that the Germans are a little reluctant to rearm when looking at this question of Western defence? They feel that the result of all this great effort will be that their country will become a battle ground, and much the same sentiments probably move those satellite countries which would like to break free but dare not do so, not only because of the horror which they know they would suffer just as Hungary is suffering at the moment, but because of the damage that would be done to their countries and to their economies.
That is one enormous advantage that the Soviet has. It has the other advantages of manpower and immensely growing machine power. British industrialists who have recently returned from Soviet Russia come back with stories, photographs and systematic information of all sorts on the enormously growing Russian output, the modern layout and the wonderful equipment of their new factories. The Soviet Union also has large natural resources upon


which it can draw. There was a time when we in the West used to say that time was on our side. I am sure that that is the reverse of true today.
What are the Russian disadvantages? They have long and very uncertain lines of communication, through Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. There are, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East has just said, growing signs of disorder, not only in the satellites but inside Russia as well. We hear all sorts of stories, for instance, of the students who, when Mr. Khrushchev came to speak to them, set up such a roar of applause that he could not speak, and no disciplinary action could be taken because it was applause and not booing.
There are other stories of a similar nature coming out of Russia. The encouraging sign seems to me to be that it is mainly the young people, the students, young factory workers and young people everywhere in Russia who have suddenly "come to" with a bump, have wakened from their trance and have realised that Communism is not all that it is cracked up to be. If just one-tenth of those stories are true, it is a very encouraging sign, and it is well worth following up.
That is where Western European Union can come in. Rather than spend enormous sums of money and waste vast numbers of man hours, wasting our manpower in military service in a defence system which we hope will never have to be used, but which we feel we must have in case of necessity, would it not be wise at the same time as maintaining those conventional methods of defence to move over a little more strongly on to the propaganda offensive?
Now that we know things are not quite so smooth as we used to think they were inside Russia and among the satellites, I should like to see a vast stepping up of our propaganda barrage, with much more radio work and the display of much more ingenuity in evading the barrage of jamming. We had a lot of experience of that sort of thing during the war, and we made very good use of our wireless network in those days. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to do the same again today. Let us use other methods as well, such as balloons which will carry and distribute leaflets over central Russia.

There are many ways in which we can get at these people.
Let our propaganda not be contentious but factual and objective. That was proved of infinite value during the war. One of the main reasons that thousands and probably millions of people listened secretly to the B.B.C. in occupied Europe between 1940 and 1945 was that they knew that what they heard was factual and that they could always trust it. They could pass on to others the information they heard through our foreign broadcasts in the full knowledge that it was trustworthy, factual information That is a supreme weapon.
We can use propaganda also through the United Nations, through proposals for discussion for the dissemination of ideas which will make the already restive Asian members of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics prick up their ears and pursue the suspicion which is already dawning upon them, that they are suffering under one of the most shocking parodies of colonialism the world has ever known.
I would ask the Minister to emphasise to the other members of Western European Union that our defence is dependent not only upon armoured divisions, infantry divisions and aeroplanes, but also very largely dependent on a wise use of propaganda.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I should like to begin by offering my congratulations to both the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich. East (Mr. Mayhew) for having seized the opportunity initiated by the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) and making speeches appropriate to the debate on Hungary a few days ago.
Like the hon. Member for Scotstoun, I hoped that this debate might have dealt with the question of the machinery set up under Western European Union. It seems to those of us who have been members of Western European Union and members of the Armaments Committee since its initiation that, unless something is done to improve the machinery, there will have been a good deal of time and money wasted in the effort which has been made.
We discovered also that when we met the Council here in London we were given one reason why the Armaments Committee could not be given the information which it considered was necessary and desirable in order to complete its work; but when we debated the report of the Council and we had with us at Strasbourg the then Foreign Secretary of the Dutch Government, we found that a totally different reason was being advanced for the information not being forthcoming.
I do not claim to be an authority on the English language, but in Article IV of the Brussels Treaty these words appear:
Recognising the undesirability of duplicating the Military Staffs of N.A.T.O., the Council and its agency will rely on the appropriate Military Authorities of N.A.T.O. for information and advice on military matters.
It seems to me that if the Council of W.E.U. has any function at all, it is to secure that information and pass it on by means of questions put by the Committee to the Council in order that it can complete its work.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East that the sort of thing he has been talking about would be appropriate for debates on Western European Union, but in order to make those debates properly useful we should have the necessary information. In the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Scotstoun, I hope that the Foreign Office and the Government will have another look at this matter.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: The debate this morning initiated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) has taken a somewhat different turn from what I had hoped or expected. We have very few occasions when there is an opportunity for us to discuss the work of Western European Union, and I was very clad to find that it was going to be possible for us to have an hour and a half today when we might consider the Recommendations of the Assembly of Western European Union.
It is, of course, perfectly true that very many of the things which have been said are relevant to the considerations which lie behind the Recommendations, but I would say to my hon. Friend the Member

for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that I cannot understand how he came to disagree with the hon. Member for Scotstoun, if he had read the Recommendations, especially Recommendation No. 5. After all, the words of Recommendation No. 5 are:
That a decision concerning the nature of the reorganisation of Western defensive forces should be taken in the immediate future and that a clear lead be given to public opinion in this matter, both by the national governments and by the organs of Western European Union of which this is a fundamental responsibility.
Could anything be clearer? Is not that precisely, as I understood it, what my hon. Friend was in fact asking for?
When Western European Union was founded it filled the gap left by the failure of the European Defence Community. It had not only the merit of filling that gap and enabling Germany to come into an organisation concerned not merely with defence but with social and cultural matters. There was something else, in the sense that the United Kingdom had committed itself by treaty in a way in which it had never done before at any time. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will confirm that; my impression is that we undertook commitments there which we had never undertaken before. The importance of Western European Union, in my opinion, rests in the fact that it consists of the six countries which are already working in the Coal and Steel Community plus the United Kingdom. It has been talked of sometimes as a possible nucleus of seven-Power integration, and certainly in form it presents enormous possibilities.
I have at the Assembly from time to time rather fiercely attacked the Council of Ministers, because I felt that it had not been telling us all the things we ought to know. I should like to quote, if I may, from words of the then Dutch Foreign Minister. M. Beyen, who was then Chairman of the Council of Western European Union. Speaking in the Assembly on 28th October, 1955, he had been at pains to argue that the Council of Ministers could not be responsible to the Assembly; the individual Ministers, he said, were responsible to their Parliaments. He then went on:
A common 'Parliament'.
like our Assembly
even when it has only a consultative capacity, makes no sense unless one assumes that there


is a common public opinion, separate from national public opinion. A common public opinion would not need, nor even deserve, a common Parliament unless there is the consciousness of a common interest, this common interest being more than merely the highest common denominator of national interests.
It is the acceptance of a common Parliament which has; paved the way for the next important step on the road to more and more integrated co-operation between Sovereign States, a common executive organ responsible to a common Parliament. That Western European Union has been given a common Parliament is. Therefore, of great importance for the fostering of the unity of Europe.
In the light of that statement in October last year, I have a question to put to the Joint Under-Secretary. Does he consider that it is part of the political rôle of Western European Union to tighten the links between the member States and try to arrive at a common attitude within the terms of reference of Western European Union? We want to know where Ministers think this organisation is going. If they know, they should tell us. If they do not know, they really ought to find out. It is not satisfactory for W.F.U. to go on, as it is at the moment, without anybody saying authoritatively what it is really up to. I am not concerned only with policy about defence, but am talking about the future of the organisation. We in the Assembly are giving consideration to this matter, but we should be helped enormously if the Ministers would be a little more forthcoming.
My second main point is that in any event we cannot do our own work properly as members of the Assembly of W.E.U.—indeed, I am not sure that we can do it at all—unless we are given all the information that we need. I know that Ministers may say that they are not responsible to the Assembly—I agree; but the Assembly was set up as an essential part of the organisation, and we exist to debate what the organisation is doing, to have views about what it might do, etc. We cannot do that unless we are given information, any more than we could do our work in this House unless we were able to draw on an enormous volume of material which we get freely from Departments by Question and Answer, and in relation to which normally only questions of security prevent our getting all the information we want. Will the Joint-Under-Secretary consider this point and

tell his colleagues about it? Perhaps he may even say something helpful today, since he is fresh from having seen his colleagues in Western European Union in the last few days.
Moreover, I would say that not only do we need information, but we also want the kind of expert help that will enable us, the members of the Assembly, to put the information out. As I said to the Assembly some time ago, the members of the Assembly could be made into first-class public relations officers if only they could be serviced and helped in ways that require, perhaps, a small amount of money; but certainly, they require some money.
My third point concerns Euratom. It would he wrong for me today to go into the merits of the various proposals for a European atomic energy authority, but speaking purely for myself, perhaps I might be permitted to say that I believe that Britain should he as closely related to whatever the authority is as possible. I would go as far as to say that we ought to be in it. Be that as it may, there is a very special point here that concerns W.E.U. The hon. Member for Scotstoun, in opening the debate, referred to it.
We in W.E.U. are concerned with the control of arms. The atomic energy authority will he concerned, I understand, with the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The raw materials and the manufacturing processes will be the same. The difference will arise only in the end-product. We ought to take advantage of the fact that Britain is in Western European Union and that in Western European Union we have precise functions concerning the control of arms in order to make a contribution in this sphere.
I believe that the Western European Union can do good work, but it can only do it if the Ministers know what they really want to do and if they agree to treat the members of the Assembly as partners in the enterprise, which really means partners in the sense of being provided with the information that we need.

1.44 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): I am rather in the position of an amateur who suddenly finds himself in the middle of a professional football


game. Most of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have for a long time been associated with W.E.U. and are greater experts on the subject than I am. Nevertheless, we can all feel that this is an opportune moment to have a debate on this organisation, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) for having raised it this afternoon.
It is just over two years since the striking series of events which began with the French Assembly's rejection of E.D.C. led to the admission of Germany to N.A.T.O. and to the creation of W.E.U. The Council and the Assembly of W.E.U. have now been in operation quite long enough for us to take stock of the position, and I do not think that any of us need feel disappointed with the results so far. I know that various suggestions have been made for improvements and I will try to deal with them, but recent events have again strongly underlined the need for cohesion and unity in Europe, and I do not think that they have found the W.E.U. particularly wanting. There may, of course, be room for improvement—there generally is—but in its own unspectacular but steady way W.E.U. has contributed much in its eighteen months of actual existence towards the strengthening of the European fabric.
The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) rather took his hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich. East (Mr. Mayhew) to task for getting on to rather wider sub-'acts than were originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun. The right hon. Member himself, I thought, went a little far when suggesting that I should now develop the Government's ideas of the whole future of W.E.U. That is a task which. I am sure, the Government must undertake, but it is a much wider subject, and I cannot deal with it this afternoon.
That the W.E.U. Council is alive and vigorous and serving a positive need was clearly in evidence at the meeting of Ministers in Paris on 10th December, that is, the meeting which preceded the meeting of N.A.T.O.—which I consider was a very satisfactory arrangement. I am not in a position to give the House a detailed report of that meeting, but I can say that it gave my right hon. and

learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the opportunity to have another important and useful discussion with his French, German, Italian and Benelux colleagues on some of the political problems concerning Western defence planning before the meeting of the North Atlantic Council. To that extent, it was carrying out Recommendation 5. They were all seized of the importance of a reappraisal and reconsideration of our priorities, and that was discussed in the W.E.U. meeting of Ministers before the N.A.T.O. meeting began only a week ago.
It also provided the occasion for the Council to note that the procedure for carrying out the provisions of the second Paris protocol governing levels of forces assigned by member States of N.A.T.O. is now in operation and working satisfactorily. The Ministerial Council also had a preliminary exchange of views on the future development of W.E.U. and will be giving it a further thought within the next three months, as I have already said.
Finally, and not least, the Council considered certain important aspects of its relations with the Assembly. The subsidiary organs of the Council have also now a good deal of solid work behind them. The weekly meetings of the Permanent Council in London are inevitably taken up with the ordinary management of the organisation and administrative matters. They also provide an opportunity for informal discussion and consultation on general political problems, and we value them as such.
The Standing Armaments Committee is proving to be a very useful medium for the exchange of technical information. My hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun knows only too well that the standardisation of equipment is a complex matter and attempts to obtain standardisation on existing equipment are not always very fruitful. The Committee is, therefore, rather more concentrating on the future, and it can. I think, promote very useful co-operation at the research and development stages, which is really where the most useful work can be done.
Then there is the Arms Control Agency, The Director of the Agency recently carried out a first test exercise


in inspection, which was an important development, I think. I am glad to say that from the preliminary reports it seems to have gone off very well. As the Prime Minister said in this House on 23rd July:
This is a subject well worth further study by us all. It is something entirely new in the modern world."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 43.]
It is co-operation between a number of countries to control the levels of armaments.
W.E.U. is a small and intimate forum whose most important function is, perhaps, to provide us and the so-called "Six" with a special link so that we form a sort of kernel within the North Atlantic Alliance. As such it can and does play an important rôle in helping to strengthen the other wider associations, both Atlantic and European.
I have not spoken of the way the W.E.U. Assembly has developed, because hon. Members are more familiar with its workings than I am. I will merely say that the Government fully appreciate the valuable rôle the Assembly is fulfilling, notably in the important task of keeping public opinion informed on the activities of W.E.U. That is why I think we can all welcome this debate here today, for it would always be very useful in all seven countries if there were from time to time debates of this kind which brought to the notice of their Parliaments and peoples the work going on in W.E.U.

Mr. D. Jones: The W.E.U. Assembly and its committees could be much more useful in that way if their questions which they address to the Council were answered and not shelved.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I hope to say something about that. The hon. Member has greater experience of these things than I have, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure him to some extent.
The sense of responsibility the Assembly has already developed is well illustrated in the three Recommendations on defence matters to which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have drawn attention today. These Recommendations are still under consideration by the W.E.U. Council. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to discuss them in detail. The Council will be replying to them in the normal way in its annual report to the Assembly.

That should not necessarily mean waiting until the spring, as there will no doubt be an opportunity for the Assembly Defence and Armaments Committee to discuss them with the Council in a joint meeting some time before the Assembly next meets.
This mechanism of the joint meeting is something to which the Council attaches special importance. It is obviously the best method of establishing that contact between the members of the Council and of the Assembly which is essential to mutual understanding and the well-being of the organisation. I recognise hon. Members' anxiety to strengthen that cooperation still farther, and I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun that it is in this spirit that the Assembly Recommendations are being considered at the moment.
I come to Recommendation 5. Now that the North Atlantic Council has laid down its directive for future military plans the way should be clear for the W.E.U. Council to reply to Recommendation 5. That is a specific requirement that we should all of us have another look at the priorities in defence planning. I cannot in this short Adjournment debate enter into such subjects as the reappraisal of Western defence planning or the West German contribution to Western defence, or the much wider problems raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, East.
I can, however, assure hon. Members that the conclusions reached in Assembly Recommendation 5 have been carefully considered by the Government and have in general been implemented by the latest N.A.T.O. directives. We fully understand the importance of the principles enunciated in the four points in that Recommendation. It was, of course, the Government who largely instigated the reappraisal by the N.A.T.O. Council. The directive approved in Paris was a secret document, and I cannot, therefore, disclose it here in this House. However, I can say that we are hopeful that it will lead to a more effective and economical use of the available resources of the Western Powers.
I come to Recommendation 7. Again, the Council is having its deliberations on this. My hon. Friend talked about an


agreement between W.E.U. and Euratom. Of course, it may well be that that is required, but it is at a very early stage yet. After all, Euratom is not yet in existence. Possibly it will be easier to see how plans for the control of fissile material can be arranged when the Euratom treaty is signed and when the Council has been able to give it rather more consideration. Very difficult technical and security points are involved, and I am afraid I cannot say much more about Recommendation 7 at the moment.
Recommendation 6 has been chiefly referred to in the debate. This raises problems of a different nature. It is quite right to say that the W.E.U. Assembly is the only international Parliamentary assembly in Europe competent to discuss defence matters. That is so. It is very natural that members should want to hold informed debates on the broader aspects of defence which are beyond the scope of the Council's activities and, therefore, of the Council's reports—by the very nature of things.
It will be evident from what I have said that the Council's activities are manifold, but it is true that in defence they are limited, limited by the decision of member Governments to prefer the North Atlantic Council to the W.E.U. Council as the forum in which to discuss strategic planning and defence policies and to rely on N.A.T.O. as the instrument through which they give effect to their mutual defence obligations. Thai decision was a political one. It was taken in 1950, and it was taken again in 1954 in the London and Paris Agreements.
The obligations of W.E.U., of course, remain valid, but it is for the individual members acting in N.A.T.O. to see that the machinery which they have chosen to use is constantly suitable. It is not for the W.E.U. Council as such. This is not a legal interpretation of the revised Brussels Treaty. It is a logical political decision taken unanimously by the member Governments. One result of it is that the Council is simply not in possession of all the detailed information on, for instance, Western defence planning, any more than it is on matters

of economic co-operation which member Governments have chosen to pursue through the O.E.E.C.
Members of the Assembly have consequently normally to look beyond the Council to inform themselves of such matters as defence policies. I do not think that this need restrict the Assembly's debates nor necessarily make them less informed than they might otherwise be. There is scope, I should think, to begin with in the exchange and pooling of information available in the seven national Parliaments. Evidently, from time to time statements will be elicited from Ministers in the various Parliaments about the state of Western defence planning and plans, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Assembly to arrange that that kind of information is pooled and is available to members who wish to take part in defence debates. Then there is, I believe, a certain amount of information on N.A.T.O. activities released by and obtainable from that Organisation itself.
Beyond this, questions of N.A.T.O. policy and activities, as on national defence policies, can always be asked in national Parliaments. This is the normal channel, and the Government will always be prepared to give hon. Members the maximum amount of information, consistent, of course, with the interests of security. I fully understand the wish of members of the Assembly to have information on such matters as Western defence planning, to have it in their hands in the form of a Council report, but that is just not possible. The staff and machinery do not exist which could provide it. On the other hand, I feel sure that, given the good will that marks the Assembly's relations with the Council and member Governments, the Assembly should not be starved of information. I repeat that the Council will be giving its detailed answer to Recommendation 6 probably in its Annual Report, and it will be available for discussion when the Assembly next meets in the spring. Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the valuable contribution which this Assembly can make to an understanding and a strengthening of the Western Alliance.

ANTI-SLAVERY CONVENTION

2.0 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: It is not my intention this afternoon to make an impassioned attack upon the odious and barbarous custom of slavery or to make an attack upon any of the Asian Powers, which seems to be becoming a habit on the benches opposite these days. However, I shall have to mention Saudi Arabia and the Yemen in this connection because there is no doubt, as was shown at the conference in New York on 13th August last, which was attended by 51 member States, that Saudi Arabia is the country most deeply implicated in slavery. In fact we know that she has legislation in force to license slave traders.
My object is to ask some questions of the Government. Indeed, I put one last Wednesday to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would take steps to convene a meeting of the signatories of the Brussels Anti-Slavery Convention, 1890, for the purpose of combating the traffic in slaves from Africa to the Middle East. So my purpose is simply to ask the Minister what he thinks he may be able to do in this matter.
Another question I want to ask at the beginning of this short debate is whether Her Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to moving a resolution at the United Nations asking for machinery to supervise the application of the slavery Conventions. This is important because we have passed 600 Conventions over the past 150 years, since the famous days of the battles of Wilberforce and his great company in the last century. So there are plenty of Conventions but they have to be implemented, which is not so simple. In fact, we have passed 80 Conventions with Portugal alone.
There are, of course, difficulties in policing the waters around the Arabian peninsula. There are some slave dealings in Baluchistan, but not many, and they are taking place mainly through ports such as Massawa and Svãkin and coves adjoining Port Sudan, indeed all that part of the west coast of the Red Sea opposite to Jidda and such places. In fact a few months ago I went by plane from Cairo to Jidda and over to Asmara and back

again to Aden by what is known as the "milk train." Air pilots to whom I was talking in the cockpit of the plane were vocal in pointing out to me stopping places on the coast where dhows put in with pilgrims, who were perhaps future slaves, going over to the eastern shores of the Red Sea.
One could collect massive evidence from the French on this matter. A gentleman called M. La Graviere, who is a member of the French Chamber of Deputies, gave evidence last year in which he mentioned a dispatch of the French Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, in Mecca, stating facts and figures. He said that about 50,000 went over and he based his statement on the fact of the numbers who went but did not return. It is significant, therefore, if pilgrims go over to Jidda, and then continue on the few, miles to Mecca and afterwards disappear. These facts cannot be burked, so I tell the Minister that we must face up to what is happening and I ask him what we can possibly do about it. Again in France-Soir of 25th September last, statistics were given in great detail. Some people may say that these are French Africans who are being taken over, but we also know of Africans who are taken even from as far as Zanzibar, let alone the Somali coast; and get over to the Saudi coast.
Why is this practice in such spate in the last few years? That was not the case between the two world wars. Indeed, at the beginning of the Second World War it had almost ceased, but since the end of that war it has thus waxed. Indeed the present Prime Minister said in 1943 or 1944 that there had been a great advance in shipping slaves over to Arabia during the Second World War. The answer is not too difficult to find. First, we used to stop ships, for we had power to examine ships on the high seas. I believe that at the last New York conference in September this year, in Clause 3 of the Resolution, we agreed not to press this right, in order that we might reserve to ourselves our right to preclude investigations in six of our Colonies, one of which was the Bahamas. I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny whether this happened.
After the 1890 Brussels Conference a permanent Slavery Bureau of member


nations was established at Brussels, with a small sub-office in Zanzibar. That office investigated what was happening and proved to be of great value in checking slave traffic. So far as I can see, however, all that is happening today is that evidence can be given by member States to the Economic and Social Council in New York. It is difficult to discover the facts but, as far as I can find out, there is not even an expert on slavery advising the Economic and Social Council. Members of the Council are what they are, national delegates; and even if they do not know much about slave dealing, it is fair to assume that they will wish to speak well of their own nations. After all, they are paid servants, and it is harsh to expect them to testify against their masters to the almost indecent details of what is happening.
I hope that the Government will suggest to the United Nations that there should be attached to the Council in New York a committee of five or seven experts upon slavery, who could amass the facts, who could receive confidential de- tails sent to them by consuls in all these ports of the States of the Middle East, and who could then advise the Economic and Social Council of the true happenings. It is futile to expect anything other beyond what is happening at the present time, unless the actual circumstances are checked. Lord Lugard has complained in the past of the mass of detail which was pigeonholed regarding what took place in the 1920s and in the 'thirties.
Our British delegate on the Economic and Social Council in 1954 said, about the mass of information coming to the United Nations:
All this additional information which has become available since the Report of the ad hoc committee—however useful it may be—does not make the picture any clearer. On the contrary, I would suggest that it rather adds to the confusion.
That is the position now.
It is well known at the moment that we—I do not know why—are the chief opponents of the setting up of supervisory machinery. It is said that we oppose it because it would become a forum for attack by the Communist Powers upon colonial Powers. That is an argument of expediency and its unworthy of this nation, in view of its past

record in opposing the nefarious business of slave dealing. We have nothing to fear from the Communist Powers in regard to slavery. There may perhaps be some slight vestige still of slavery in Hong Kong, perhaps a little in Aden Protectorate—I would not care to say too much about that—and perhaps even a little household or domestic slavery still in Malaya; but there is really very little of that sort of thing now.
This "ostrich" policy, which results from the fear that the Communists might attack us in open council, is unworthy of us and completely at variance with our past policy and history. I trust that the Government will move to set up some supervisory machinery for enforcing the slavery Conventions, and I hope the Minister will give us a forthcoming answer today.

2.12 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). We are probably pushing at an open door in view of the action that was taken by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government at the meeting held in regard to the Convention, but perhaps we might try to push the door a little further open.
For many years the United Nations has laboured to produce a new Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Practices Similar to Slavery, and last September such a Convention was adopted. I do not think it was a very strong Convention. It was disappointing in many respects. We all know very well that the best text in the world is not sufficient if it cannot be implemented by satisfactory action, and it is in that respect that the new Convention is disappointing.
I am glad that Her Majesty's Government from the beginning took the lead in an attempt to put teeth into the Convention. One crucial point in our draft, to which my hon. Friend has referred, was the right to search ships on the high seas 'if they were suspected of carrying slaves. I know that the Afro-Asian bloc and Russia opposed it, but I think it a pity that we dropped that point. After all, it is the only effective way in which we could put into practice the attempt to stop what is going on. I cannot see any logical reason why the


Asian-African bloc opposed it. There is no question of its argument about colonialisation, which it so frequently uses, arising in a matter of this sort. The shipping of slaves is something of very serious consequence to the world as a whole.
The shipping of slaves occurs in only one particular area of the world, in the seas around Arabia. The warships most likely to search such slavers would be British, and I feel sure that there would not be any abuse of the right to search. I am sorry that we gave up the fight for that right. As far as I know, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are the only States in the world where chattel slavery is still a legal institution. Only a year or so ago a French Deputy—the person, I assume, to whom my hon. Friend referred—investigated the situation and found that every year ignorant Africans are lured on by agents to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. They are not told, of course, that they need a Saudi Arabian visa. When they arrive in Saudi Arabia without a visa they are arrested and put into prison for a few days and then handed over to licensed slave dealers. In addition, raids are made in Baluchistan and the Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and people are captured and carried off by land and sea, taken to small Saudi Arabian ports and sold in slave markets.
At the Geneva Conference the Saudi Arabian representative had the effrontery to declare that slavery had been abolished in his country. Only recently a law was signed by King Saud laying down the legal status of slaves and empowering the Minister of the Interior to license slave dealers. I doubt very much whether Saudi Arabia will sign and ratify the new Convention. Even if she signs, there will still be the question of whether she will implement the Convention.
Only international implementation can really achieve something in this respect. I hope we shall do what my hon. Friend has asked, that is, set up various bodies to enable the position to be strengthened, so that we can have an effective machine.
It is true, too—I am sure the Minister will not deny it—that Article I (c) and (d) of the Convention may, in small measure, be called in aid against us by those who oppose us in respect of the

Convention. Some tribal customs which, unfortunately, exist in places where we have some jurisdiction could be held to contravene those sections, and I hope we shall do everything possible to put that matter right.
All this brings into clear relief the importance of having, particularly in that part of the Middle East, a good, free and democratic outlook among the nations concerned. The state of civilisation which is exhibited, for example, by the State of Israel in general, and particularly in regard to the treatment of its inhabitants in relation to labour, domestic and other rights—anti-slavery rights in the fullest sense of the term—should have attention drawn to it in an effort to get others to follow that example and to realise how important it is to base themselves upon that type of moral outlook.
I hope the Minister will accede to the points which have been raised and will carry out to its logical conclusion what was so clearly indicated by our own representatives in the deliberations which took place.

2.20 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), both of whom have taken a great interest in this matter, for the way in which they have spoken on this occasion. I do not think that there is any party disagreement, either on the approach to the matter or on the way in which we are trying to deal with it. Certainly I can say at once that it is not due to any lack of sympathy or understanding on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the approaches that we have made elsewhere, even if we have failed to achieve all we wanted.
The hon. Member for Rugby raised a number of issues about which he was good enough to give me private notification, as he knows they are somewhat technical, and in the time at my disposal I will do my best to answer them. There are, of course, limitations on the actions of any Government in this particular form of activity. We agree with everything that has been said in deploring the


abominable practice of slave trading and slave owning, and wish that our views on this matter were universally shared; but it is right to remind the House that other nations do not share those views.
It is a fact that slavery is an institution which is recognised by Moslem law, and it is also a fact with which we have to reckon in this day and age that there are severe limitations on the action which outside Powers can take in telling other countries what they should not do in matters which those countries regard as their own internal affairs. We must work within existing frameworks and to some extent take the world as we find it. I mention those limitations not to excuse what we cannot do, but rather to show the House, against this background, how much in fact we have been able to achieve in the issue before the House, and the 1956 Convention in particular.
The hon. Member for Rugby spoke about Hong Kong. I have no evidence whatever that there is any slavery in the Colony. The hon. Member may have in mind an institution called Mui-Tsai, or child bondage. As my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, informed the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 22nd February:
No cases have come to light for a number of years. Mui-Tsai is illegal and social welfare inspectors vigilantly enforce the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1956: Vol. 549, c. 37.]
The hon. Member also mentioned Malaya. I have no knowledge of slavery or of anything comparable to Mui-Tsai. In the Colony of Aden slave owning is, of course, forbidden by law. It is not expressly forbidden in the Aden Protectorates, which Her Majesty's Government do not, of course, directly administer, but with the full agreement of the rulers concerned, the representatives of Her Majesty's Government are able to issue a manumission certificate to any slave who applies for one. In the areas on either side, the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, interception patrols are carried out by the Royal Navy, and Her Majesty's ships on passage have instructions to search suspected slavers.

Mr. J. Johnson: How many cases have there been in the last year or two?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am afraid that I could not answer that question without

notice. I shall return again to this matter in a moment.
The hon. Members suggested that there has been a revival of the slave trade since the Second World War. It is, of course, a matter, like contraband or the drug traffic, about which it is very difficult to be categorical, but while there is some evidence that the trade is continuing, I have no evidence, as I have said in the House before, that it is on the increase. Saudi Arabia, as both hon. Members have mentioned, is the country most concerned. Slave owning, for the reasons which I have given, is legal in that country, but there is a prohibition, which may not always be enforced, on the importation of slaves by sea.
I come to what Her Majesty's Government are doing, and our continued leadership and initiative under the 1956 Convention. I have tried to show what Her Majesty's Government have done in territories for which they are in some degree responsible. We have also taken important international initiatives. We played a leading part in preparing the ground for the 1956 Convention by participating in the ten-Power Committee which prepared the preliminary text in January, 1956, and in securing that a plenipotentiary conference should be held in Geneva to adopt a new convention.
That Convention supplements, but does not supersede, the Convention of 1926. Its object is:
… to intensify national as well as international efforts towards the abolition of slavery, the slave trade, and institutions and practices similar to slavery.
I draw the attention of the House to Section 1, which is a very important development from the 1926 Convention. It binds the parties to abolish debt bondage, serfdom, practices by which women are sold into marriage, and the exploitation of minors. The parties to the Convention are bound to make participation in the slave trade a criminal offence, to prevent their own ships and aircraft from conveying slaves, and to ensure that slaves are not conveyed in or through their territories.
Hon. Members who will refer to Cmd. 9870 will see what has been achieved and what an important document that Convention is. So far the Convention, I am glad to say, has been signed by 33 countries, including two


Moslem countries, Iraq and the Sudan. I take exception to what the hon. Member for Rugby said about Port Sudan possibly being used for the slave trade. I do not believe that there is any evidence of any change in Port Sudan in measures against slavery.

Mr. Johnson: The impression t had hoped to give was not that the port was being used, but that the coves along the coast-line in that area where being used. If I gave the impression that I meant Port Sudan itself, I withdraw that.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that, because I am sure that the Sudan Government are endeavouring, as they have done for a number of years, to try to get this trade suppressed.
The effectiveness of the Convention must largely depend on the number of accessions, and the United Kingdom delegation to the current session of the United Nations General Assembly has been instructed to raise the matter in the hope of stimulating further accessions.
Criticisms of the Convention and of the right to search have been made, and Her Majesty's Government realise that there have been these criticisms. Indeed, as I said myself in reply to a Question on 24th October:
… the Convention is not in every respect in the form we should have desired … [OFFICIAL. REPORT. 24th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 617.]
In particular we were disappointed that it could not be agreed that the Convention should contain provision for the search and seizure of suspected slavers. However, as I have said before, we have to take into consideration the views of other countries, and a number of delegations, backed by the Soviet bloc raised violent, if unreasonable, objections to a clause which we supported, on the grounds that the draft provisions were discriminatory and insulting to national sovereignty and an attempt to re-impose so-called imperialism.
We were not in a position to force other delegations to our way of thinking. For our part we consider that any rights which we possess in this respect under earlier international agreements, for example the Brussels Act. 1890, are not

affected by the failure to make specific provision for such rights in the 1956 Convention.
Other suggestions have been put forward for, as it were, reinforcing the 1956 Convention. The hon. Member for Rugby, in a Question on Wednesday, suggested that we should convene a meeting of the signatories of the Brussels Convention. As I said in my reply on 19th December, we doubt whether such a meeting would assist in achieving the objects desired. The signatories of the Brussels Act, 1890, included the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires and Czarist Russia, whose successors are difficult to determine. Moreover, certain of the signatory States, but not, as I have said. Her Majesty's Government, are known to consider that the Brussels Act is no longer in force.
Another point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby was the question of further United Nations machinery. He spoke of a bureau in Zanzibar, which according to the inquiries I have made, has not existed since the First World War, when some individual was kept there. We do not believe that any supplementary machinery is necessary to supervise the application of the slavery Conventions. It is always open to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to suggest further machinery to supplement this Convention, if he sees fit to do so. We will at that time consider any suggestions that he may make, but at the moment the existing machinery of the United Nations seems to be adequate.

Mr. Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment upon the suggestion of having an advisory committee of five or seven experts to advise the Economic and Social Council in this matter?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was just coming to that matter.
I wish first to finish dealing with the question whether there should be further United Nations supplementary machinery. It is probable that many of the States parties to the 1956 Convention would not have agreed to the establishment of a supervisory organisation, and no such organisation was proposed at the Geneva Conference. On the other hand, the States parties to the Convention are required to co-operate with the United Nations


in giving effect to it. They have to communicate to the Secretary-General any laws, regulations, etc., which give effect to it, and the Secretary-General has to communicate this information both to the other parties and to the Economic and Social Council for discussion. If the Secretary-General were to report that he needs an expert consultant, we should be ready to consider any such proposal.
As regards the suggestion of a committee of experts, we doubt if that would be any improvement on existing arrangements under the Economic and Social Council. I think the hon. Member will agree that we can leave that matter there and see what the Secretary-General may feel should follow from that Convention.
In conclusion, I would say that we believe that the 1956 Convention will mark a further stage in intensifying efforts to stamp out practices which we all agree to be repugnant to civilised consciences. We have every reason to be proud of our own record. We have followed a consistent policy throughout, for many years, and it was mainly due to our initiative that action was taken to produce a

new Convention. We hope that the largest possible number of countries will accede, and play a full part in intensifying efforts to eradicate slavery and the slave trade.
In the last resort, progress must depend upon the pressure of public opinion here and elsewhere. It is for that reason that we welcome the hon. Member raising this matter today, and I hope that wide notice will be taken of it. The hon. Member mentioned the many Conventions which have been made. I suppose that in the last hundred years this matter has been one of intense public interest. The fact that the House is not as crowded at the moment as some would have liked to see it, is not due merely to the nearness of Christmas but also signifies in some measure the success of the policies, which were largely initiated in this country a hundred years or more ago, for the abolition of this trade.
For our part, we have made and will continue to make a full and wholehearted contribution. We will neglect no opportunity, by peaceful persuasion, and by our own example, to bring other countries to share our purpose.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (DENTISTS)

2.35 p.m.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: I am quite certain that those of us who have read the Ministry of Health Report for 1955 cannot fail to have been impressed by the facts revealed in that portion of it relating to dental health. It shows that it is rare indeed to find a five-year old child or an 18-year old adolescent completely free of dental decay. That means that individuals, through a period of growth of two sets of teeth, have been subject to dental ill-health.
Unlike many diseases in the field of public health, many of which have been controlled by specific drugs and by vaccines, there is no easy way to dental health; it is something which has to be dealt with by the individual and by the dental surgeon. It is that point which causes me to raise this matter now. It is probable that many people will not enjoy their Christmas pudding or other of their Christmas fare because their teeth are not in thoroughly good order, and such foods may affect them painfully.
It is because dental diseases are not killers that we probably fail to give them the attention which they should really have. On the other hand, they vitally affect our robust health. We are all aware that serious dental complaints can affect other parts of the body. Mothers, teachers, health visitors and district nurses can all play a part in encouraging dental hygiene and, through that, dental health, but much more needs to be done in that direction by means of propaganda. The dental surgeon plays a vitally important part. The regular visit to the dentist, when he can give skilled attention to something which is quite minor, preventing it from becoming much more serious, is of the utmost importance.
We are woefully short of those dentists in our Service. Not only that, but they are not evenly distributed, which is a very important factor. One wonders what would be the position of, say, expectant and nursing mothers and young children, if they all sought the dental treatment which the Health Service says that they are entitled to—to say nothing of the

adolescents. There are just not enough dentists to go round, and something needs to be done about it.
The Report also makes the significant statement that of children between the ages of 3 and 4, only 15 per cent. have been treated in any one year, and that of children between the ages of 5 and 14 about 40 per cent. have been treated in any one year, which goes to show that through the school dental service a rather greater percentage of children have some treatment.
In 1948 there were about 1,052 dentists in the school dental service, but by 1951 the figure had dropped to 816. I well remember the alarm felt throughout local authorities at that time at that drop in the number of dentists. By 1955, however, the figure had risen to 1,178. The point is that that number depends upon the average age of the personnel, and in the dental profession it is rather high. The McNair Report estimates that half the number of present registered dentists are over middle age, and that about 8,000 of the present total number of about 16,000 dentists will retire by 1966. There will be some recruits but they will not make up for that wastage. Time passes very rapidly these days, and 1966 will soon be upon us. Sixteen thousand dentists is inadequate for a good dental service for our population today. When all is said and done, we are a very much larger population now than we were when a previous committee dealt with this matter.
A further point is that our recruitment at the present moment cannot be above 650 per year. This is not a new problem because it was discussed as far back as 1944 by the Teviot Committee, which reported on the shortage and made recommendations. Unfortunately, since that time nothing in particular has been done, and those dentists about whom that Committee were talking then are twelve years older and some of them not with us at all.
At the inception of the present Health Service, the demand for dentures swept the profession and attracted many dentists from the more tedious and probably less remunerative side of the Service. We have heard of them earning high salaries, but since those early days of the Health Service they have


sustained cuts in their salaries and in their income, despite the falling value of money. I feel that it is this uncertainty of income and lack of appreciation of the importance of the dental profession in the health scheme which has had an effect on recruitment. A further irritation has been in the dentists' minds lately, and that is the number of matters which have to be referred to the Dental Assessments Board. Many of them feel that that is a reflection on their capabilities, and it reduces their confidence in being members of the dental profession.
We know that the Dental Assessments Board has, at any rate, two jobs. It considers payments, and it has to safeguard against abuse. I think that we might have a little more confidence in the dentists and not have so many matters referred to the Board, because that can on occasion cause delay and the dentist not giving his patient treatment as quickly as he would like treatment which, in a comparable sphere, the medical man likes to give to his patient. I think that is something that the Minister might look into.
Recent examination of this problem by the McNair Committee has done something to encourage students to come forward, because they feel that here at least something will be done to give this profession its right importance and a status comparable with the medical profession, which its contribution to the health of the community really warrants. Dentistry is a profession in which women can take quite an important part. They arc, to my mind, very suitable for this profession, but I do not think that quite enough emphasis has been placed upon it at school-leaving time, when careers are being considered for girls.
Another factor which I think needs to be looked at is that of grants to enable students to take up the profession. I think that careful consideration should be given to these grants and their scope widened. It is true that greater numbers of students are coming forward at the present moment but they are still insufficient—that is what I want to stress—to ensure our having an adequate supply of dentists in order to give a very much better and fuller service than we have enjoyed hitherto.
If we get new students, coping with them presents a difficulty. It is a diffi-

culty that needs examining and rectifying with all speed. That is again a reason why it was necessary to raise this matter as quickly as possible. The trouble at the moment is that there are insufficient places in the dental schools. We have to remember that whatever efforts are made now and however quickly they are made, it will probably by eight years before we can feel the real benefit of a vastly increased supply of members of the dental profession.
What can be done to improve this very difficult position in which we now find ourselves? We must have additional places in the dental schools, and we must have additional schools. I will mention one or two things which might be considered, and which I hope the Minister will be able to consider when he has been informed of them through the Parliamentary Secretary. Indeed, some of these points have been considered by the dental profession, since they are anxious that this matter should be put right. These are matters of major importance when considering where a new school should be or where a school should be expanded.
First, there must be a sufficiently large population to supply the clinical needs of training, and there must be a university background with a medical school to enable the teaching to go on. Where schools already exist the facilities available must show possibilities of expansion, to meet the new needs. In this regard, several suggestions have been made. For instance, Cardiff University has not a dental school. It does, I think, strike us that it would be advantageous to have a dental school in Wales, and Cardiff seems to be a suitable place. The suggestion made is that there should be a school there for at least fifty students.
In Scotland, Aberdeen is a possible centre and a new school there for twenty-five students would be very useful. In Glasgow, it is necessary either to enlarge the present school or preferably to erect a new school. Cambridge and Oxford should have dental schools, which they have not at present. Birmingham should have an enlarged dental school, because in an area like Birmingham there is a large population and a good field for the clinical work, and plenty of hospitals to which it could be attached. In London there are several hospitals with which


dental schools could be associated. Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool are all thickly populated areas, as we know, but I think that with a very slight extension of the facilities provided there they might be adequately catered for.
It is necessary not only that we should have places for students, probably up to the number of 1,000 in place of the present maximum of 650, but that they should be evenly distributed so that all parts of the country can have the benefit of good dental service. It is quite obvious that not only the Minister of Health but the Minister of Education will have to take some part in improving this service by an increase of students, and I hope that the Minister will give urgent consideration to this matter in the light of the present difficulties.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I want to intervene only very shortly, because I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary has a lot which she will want to say. I am grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) for having raised this subject, which is a very important one, and I would agree that the suggestion she has made has been supported by the British Dental Association, whose recommendations I have before me.
In the Report now before us, it is urged that, on the question of recruitment, there should be a revision of the method of paying dentists. The Committee feels that the present basis is unsatisfactory and rather derogatory to the dental profession. I would very much welcome a re-examination of this matter, particularly in the light of the recommendations contained in the Guillebaud Report, which suggested that if people would put themselves into a good state of dental health the charges for treatment should be withdrawn. That seems to me a basis for reconsidering the form of payment at the same time.
I also think that the point made in the Report about more hospital posts is an important one, but we must, I think, whenever we consider the problem of recruitment, keep it in balance with the problem of prevention. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look again at the very lackadaisical way in which we seem

to be approaching the problem of fluoridisation, the addition of fluorides to water, as one undoubtedly valuable method of preventing dental decay.
The problem of education and that of research has been raised. Much more research is needed to be done. I look forward to the day when we shall not talk continuously about the need for additional dentists, but shall have advanced a great deal in the prevention of the disease itself.

2.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill) for having raised this very interesting debate because it has given us an opportunity to focus attention on the very valuable Report received from the McNair Committee. I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend—and, as I am sure, other hon. Members would wish to do—thank the Chairman and members of that Committee for the valuable study of this pressing problem which they have made. The Report is being studied as a matter of great urgency, but most of its recommendations require joint or concerted action by a considerable number of bodies, and there are very substantial financial implications which also have to be considered. I am sure, therefore, that the House will not expect me to announce any firm decisions today, but it may be useful to comment on some of the more important recommendations made by the Committee.
There is undeniably a great shortage of dentists, a fact which is well known to all of us. We have at present about 15,900 dentists on the Dentists' Register, 14,900 of them living in the United Kingdom. That means that there is only one dentist to every 3,273 of the population. which is much lower than in Canada, Sweden. Norway or the United States, Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we are now about to experience the results of the very small entrance to the dental schools in earlier years and we shall be losing that very large body of dentists which took advantage of the 1921 Act and who are now reaching retiring age.
On the question of the intake into the dental schools, there has been a steady


improvement in the last three years, and the schools are practically up to capacity at the present time. There has been a growing awareness about the opportunities which the dental profession can provide, and in the case of one school all its vacancies have been taken up this year for the first time in twenty years.
The Inter-departmental Committee on Dentists which reported in October, 1945, gave the figure of 20,000 as being the requirement of dentists in the country. Clearly, the possibility of attaining anything like that number over, say, the next ten years will depend on a very large number of factors, including the public demand, the effectiveness of dental health education, the proportion of dental skill which is applied to the priority classes—children, young persons, expectant and nursing mothers—the contribution which we believe ancillary workers can make, the development of fluoridation, the question of diet, the extension of dental research, and the better organisation of the profession. All these things, we believe, have a very real contribution to make to the problem.
The McNair Committee accepted the Teviot Committee target of 20,000 dentists, and agreed that even over so long a period as twenty years this would call for an annual output of at least 800 newly-qualified dentists who would practise in Great Britain. Allowing for wastage, which is normally about 10 per cent., and the training of students who will not practise in this country for any length of time, the McNair Committee recommend an intake of 1,000 a year. We shall therefore need 8,000 new dentists or an average of 800 a year over the next ten years if even the present strength is to be maintained.
The maximum number of students that can normally be accepted each year is 645. As I have said, we are virtually full up this year for the first time for many years, which is a sign of good progress. The adoption of the McNair figure of 1,000 a year would entail providing places for an additional 350 students. My hon. Friend mentioned several places where she thought we might appropriately have a dental school, and she spent many millions of pounds in seconds. I know that she is aware, as we are, that this is a matter where one sets the capital

expense against other priorities in the Service. One also must consider the staffing that will be required. It is a longterm problem and one which raises very substantial problems.
Oft of the problems is that we have to get enough students of the right calibre who will be able to take the course which we have to provide, and also a supply of teachers, if we are to meet this additional intake of 350 a year. We have also to provide the places. One of the problems in the past few years has been that some applicants could not be considered for vacancies because they lacked the necessary educational qualifications for the course. These are vast and complicated matters on which consultation is taking place between the other Ministries concerned and the professional bodies. I know that the House will appreciate that my right hon. Friend is unable today to announce any final decisions on the recommendations of the Committee.
On dental health education, the McNair Committee came to the conclusion that the main reason for the shortage of dental students in the past, although admittedly recruitment has been improving, is that the public does not appreciate the true importance of dental health, and that because of that the profession does not enjoy the status which it merits. One of the most important recommendations of the McNair Committee, therefore, is that a comprehensive programme of dental health education should be undertaken. It proposes the setting up of an independent and representative standing committee to examine the problem.
Clearly, that will have to be done in consultation not only with the Ministry of Health, but with the Ministries of Education and Labour and the Departments of Scottish Health and Education, the General Dental Council, the British Dental Association, the dental schools, local authorities, and possibly commerce. I am pleased to tell the House that the British Dental Association and the General Dental Council have warmly welcomed the proposal and have offered their co-operation.
The McNair Committee drew attention not only to the need to enlist more women into the profession, but also to the positive advantage which for them dentistry has over many other professions.
I should like strongly to support that recommendation. Women have certain qualtities which appear to make them eminently suitable members of the dental profession. They have a natural aptitude for any healing art, and most of them have a gift for the handling of children which is particularly useful in the dental profession.
Opportunities for part-time work are numerous in dentistry, so it is easier for a married woman whose whole time is not required for domestic duties to engage in the part-time duties of her profession and thus make a substantial contribution to the needs of the country. As the House knows, Parliament has this year taken a big step towards improving the status of the profession. The Dentists' Act, 1956, provided for the establishment of a General Dental Council and gave self-government to the profession. The Council was set up in July, and creates a great opportunity for the leaders of the profession to show wisdom and foresight in the development of their profession.
The Committee also felt that discontent among dentists, resulting in a reluctance to encourage others to join the profession, as my hon. Friend thought, arose in part from the present method of remuneration. It recommended that a thorough review of the whole system of remuneration should be undertaken. We know that the British Dental Association has embarked on a study of this problem, and before forming any views on it ourselves we shall need to know the views which it will be putting forward to my right hon. Friend, The House will not expect me to make any statement in advance of our having very full consultation with the profession.
The Committee also recommended that there should be some possible relaxation in the types of treatment requiring prior approval of the Dental Estimates Board, which was another point made by my hon. Friend. In 1955 only one-fifth of all the courses of treatment included items of treatment which required prior approval of the Board, a smaller proportion than in the previous year. I think there is likely to be an even smaller proportion this year.
Hon. Members who were present were pleased to learn from my right hon. Friend last week that he had been able to include the rebuilding of the Birmingham Dental Hospital as one of the major pro-

jects to start in 1958–59. The present plan is to provide hospital and teaching accommodation for an annual intake of 75 students, compared with the present number of 40 quoted in the McNair Report. On the basis of a five-year degree course of study this would increase the total population of dental students at Birmingham by 175.
The distribution of dentists taking part in the General Dental Service is very uneven between various parts of the country, being much higher in London and the South-East than in the Midlands. We hope that the profession will do all it can to persuade its members to staff those undermanned areas, realising that in showing such a sense of its responsibilities it will raise its prestige in the eyes of the public. In the School Dental Service, although there is a grave shortage, the number has risen in the United Kingdom from 807 in 1951, to 1,182 in 1955.
There was another particular aspect of the Report which highlighted the fact that in general practice the dentist's earnings fall off very considerably from middle-age onwards, arising from the fact that dental operations—most of which under present custom are performed standing—are arduous and demand a high degree of manual dexterity, so that under a system of remuneration based on piecework the dentist who is young and fit can earn a great deal more than the one who is older. This peculiar pattern of earnings does not obtain in the salaried local authority service. Once that material difference is fully appreciated it is to be hoped that the local authority service will prove more attractive to dentists. That service, with its many opportunities for sessional work with children, should be particularly attractive to women.
A feature of the dental services in this country is the preponderance of single-handed practices, resulting in very high overhead costs, a lack of opportunity for the dentist to concentrate on the work at which he is most apt, or which he finds most congenial, and a position in which the skill and experience of the older dentist is often not adequately used, and thus, from the point of view of earning capacity, fails to compensate for his growing inability to work for as long or as speedily as his younger colleagues. It is this structure of the profession which gives rise more than any other factor to


the peculiar pattern of earnings, which drop considerably from middle age onwards.
No one will deny that the skill and experience which comes from a lifetime of practice should be recognised in the remuneration of a dentist if in fact he is applying that skill and experience and not spending his time on the more routine type of case which can be dealt with as ably and more speedily by his junior. Outside the hospitals and clinics the answer seems to lie in group practice.
One can envisage the dental team of the future as consisting of one member whose special interest lies in preventive dentistry and the care of children, another whose forte is conservative technique, another who has specialised in oral surgery, and another who has made the provision of dentures his speciality; all of them working under the leadership of the senior member of the firm, a man ripe in experience and diagnostic ability. Such a team, backed up by the skilled services of a dental hygienist and a dental technician, would go far to satisfy the professional aspirations of the young dental man and woman of the future. The time has perhaps come for the profession to give very serious thought to the advantages which would lie in the introduction of group practices of that kind.
I apologise, in view of the time limit, that I have not been able to deal with the other many points which have been raised. I wholeheartedly support what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) about fluoridation. I can assure him that we are going ahead as quickly as possible with the demonstrations of which he is aware.

MRS. HARRIET THORNTON

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: The debate which has just concluded has been on dentists, and I cannot fail to recollect that I have this morning been in the dentist's chair. If I do not now feel full of the Christmas spirit, hon. Members will, I hope, appreciate that it is the dentist who is to blame.
Mrs. Thornton was recently discharged after 3½ years in a mental institution. My many months of investigations have revealed a state of affairs under the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts which give cause for deep concern and which. I believe, would cause a great public outcry were the facts known to the people. As I see it, provision is made for a person going into prison, no matter how heinous the crime, to be made aware of his or her rights in prison, but for the person who goes into a mental home it seems to be like going into another world, where, if there are any rights, the patients are left in ignorance of them.
When it is realised that certifications take place with no public hearing, no rules of evidence, no disclosure of allegations to the patient, and no opportunity to challenge or cross-examine the evidence, it will be seen how terribly dangerous the procedure can be. To be certified is, in itself, whether justified or not, a terrible thing, and I submit that with our slapdash mental laws a mistake can easily he made. I commend to the Minister the Dutch laws as being infinitely better. I am also shocked at the consequences of being certified. Even when patients are discharged, the frustrations which they eventually meet are enough to send them insane and back once more into the mental home.
I should like to make it clear that I am convinced that the present Minister of Health is desperately anxious to improve the situation, but I have seen enough to know that he is in an exceedingly difficult position, because of vested interests and the ganging up that goes on to prevent unpleasant facts becoming known. At this stage I should like to correct the facts as stated in HANSARD, when I raised Mrs. Thornton's case at Question Time on 19th November last. This gives a little idea of what one has


to contend with in searching for the truth. The OFFICIAL REPORT reads:
Mr. Dodds asked the Minister of Health why a box of important documents taken by Mrs. Harriet Thornton to Cane Hill Mental Hospital was allowed to remain in a ward for three-and-a-half years despite correspondence on the subject from the official solicitor appointed to look after Mrs. Thornton's affairs; and, in view of the fact that this is a breach of the lunacy law, what action he proposes to take.
Mr. Turton: My information is that Mrs. Thornton did not bring the box with her on admission, and it was therefore not included in the inventory of her belongings. Later she asked the ward sister to put it in the ward store room saying that it contained private letters; and she did not mention it when the medical superintendent subsequently asked her about the whereabouts of certain documents required by the official solicitor. She did not ask for it until after her discharge, when after a search it was found still locked away. Owing to the lapse of time the box had been overlooked, but I am not aware that there was any breach of the law.
Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that this lady, when she was forcibly taken to a mental home, took these important documents with her? When persons are certified, surely the authorities want to know what certified patients are taking into mental homes, and is not there some degree of slackness if they were unaware that these documents were there the whole of the time?
Mr. Turton: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension? She did bring in certain documents on her admission. They were included in the inventory, and in due course those wanted by the official solicitor were handed to him. The other documents in this box were brought in later, I am informed, by a visitor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November. 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1364–5.]
I knew that the Minister was being misled, and I therefore supplied evidence and asked that an investigation should take place.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Minister as follows:
With regard to the box of documents, I said in the House on 19th November when replying to your Question that my information was that Mrs. Thornton did not bring it with her on admission to the hospital. I regret to find that further questioning of the stall concerned has resulted in some evidence that she might in fact have brought the box and parcel with her, as a nurse remembers her having them shortly after admission.
I submit that that is as near to an apology as it is possible to get in a case of this sort.
I cross swords with the next extract from the Minister's letter:
You doubtless appreciate the difficulty of actual inventories being made in all cases when admissions are heavy and the nurses are necessarily preoccupied with more pressing matters.

What could be more important than for a woman to be forced to go into a mental home, having collected her marriage and birth certificates, war loan certificates and bank book—in fact, all the important documents—as well as any jewellery, and with other things which she will badly need when she gets out? Is it not an awful state of affairs that those articles can lay about in mental institutions? It happened in this case, and I believe it happens quite frequently. What an awful system it is that allows all sorts of wrong things to happen.
I shall have something more to say on this aspect of the matter on a future occasion. I have been advised to leave well alone now that Mrs. Thornton has been discharged, as I was told that I would only be knocking my head against a stone wall. But I have seen and heard enough, and I am determined—indeed, it is my resolution for 1957—that I will tackle this subject with far greater vigour than I have done in the past. I would add that there are other hon. Members who are deeply concerned, and I believe a lot more will be heard on this subject in 1957. Although I know that a Royal Commission is sitting on these matters, that by itself does not mean that we should keep quiet in the meantime.
On the subject of "ganging up" to which I have referred, I appreciate that a temporary advantage can be obtained by the Government Front Bench, in the form of briefs supplied to Ministers containing information from the various vested interests, but I would like the Ministers concerned to know that this will be only a temporary advantage because these briefs will be scrutinised with a tooth comb and more will be heard about them in the future if they are not in accordance with facts. I am going to use the case of Mrs. Thornton as a yard-stick to show what can happen so easily to any normal person under our slap-dash mental laws when an evilly disposed person is concerned.
There are important facets to this case, but owing to the limitation of time today I can deal with only one of the main facts, and I should like even more time for that. The others will follow in due course. My case is that Mrs. Thornton should never have been certified, and would not have been but for the determination of her husband to get rid of


her. Our slap-dash laws and the slapdash way in which they are all too often carried out make this sort of thing so easy.
It may be asked how I know that the husband was determined to get rid of his wife. I interviewed him for 3½ hours with two witnesses. What he said—and with other substantial evidence there can be no doubt of it—was that he had tried other means to do this, and then turned to the possibility of a mental institution. My concern, however, is not with the husband but with the law and with the way in which it is carried out which makes it so easy for these things to happen.
The first attempt to get Mrs. Thornton into a mental home failed. On 30th December, 1952, she was certified by one general medical practitioner, by no means an expert in mental illness. It seems that the confidence of the husband did the trick, and a justice of the peace also co-operated. Fortunately, on this occasion she was taken to an observation ward of a mental hospital to be watched by experts for fifteen days. At the end, she was discharged and advised to see a lawyer to deal with problems between husband and wife.
Every person should go into an observation ward before being put into a mental hospital, because once one is in a mental hospital it is a devil of a job to get outside, and we have been told in the House that roughly 60 per cent. of the people who go into mental homes do not have the advantage of going into an observation ward but go straight into the mental hospital.
The second attempt succeeded. Three months later, on 30th March. 1953, Mrs. Thornton was certified. On this occasioin, she went not to an observation ward but straight into a mental institution, a mental institution which also housed lunatics and imbeciles. Mrs. Thornton described that experience as "absolute hell," and it must be hell to a sane person, no matter how the authorities strive to make a mental home a heaven upon earth.
While she was a patient, no reasons for the certification could be obtained. These can be obtained only when the person has been discharged and applies to the Board of Control for a copy of

the reception order. On some other occasion I shall have some strong comments to make about the Board of Control, but for the present my only comment will be that the Board of Control was set up primarily to safeguard the interests of the individual. My experience indicates how completely it fails to do this, and a searching inquiry into its activities—or, better still, its lack of activity—is long overdue.
After discharge, Mrs. Thornton applied for and received from the Board of Control a copy of the reception order, have the copy in my hand, and it is an interesting document. There are three sheets. The front sheet is headed:
Summary reception order
The first page gives the name of the justice of the peace and of the one and only doctor—I repeat, the one doctor, because most people, even doctors, are under the impression that two doctors are needed; but not in a summary reception order, and in this case only a general practitioner was responsibile. Is it not amazing that the J.P. and the doctor saw Mrs. Thornton only once and for no more than five minutes? During those five minutes, the J.P. asked not a single question before the awful deed was done. It is true that they spent about half an hour with the husband, but since the husband was not a true advocate for his wife, that is not good enough. I have checked on these facts.
On the second page of the reception order, we get down to business, because it is here the doctor gives the reasons for declaring Mrs. Thornton insane. I quote:
I am a person registered under the Medical Act, 1858, and I am in the actual practice of the medical profession, … I personally examined the said Minnie Harriet Thornton and came to the conclusion that she is a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment. I formed this conclusion on the following grounds …
Then there are seven reasons, only one of which cannot be checked—that she was unco-operative and excited. Who would not be in that state on knowing that an effort was being made to put her into a mental home?
There are, however, six reasons given, each one of which can be completely destroyed. Had anyone taken the trouble to get evidence other than from the husband, of course they would have been


destroyed. For instance, it is said that Mrs. Thornton
had delusions of persecution. She said: 'My husband nearly killed me. He tried to push me over the banisters'.
That is not a delusion—it is a fact. Luckily, another doctor, whose name and address I have, was passing at the time and saw it all happen and called the police. The son had to fight with his father for ten minutes to prevent Mrs. Thornton from being thrown over the banisters, but the son, who knows more about what happened in the house than anyone, and from whom I have evidence, has never been asked by anybody to give a statement.
The second reason is that Mrs. Thornton
was hallucinated. She said: 'I get messages about people from the spirits. I can't help it if God has ordained it'.
For years she had been an ardent spiritualist. In the middle of the twentieth century, it is not a sign of insanity because a person believes in that. I could go on in the same way with every one of the six reasons. I charge this doctor with making mis-statements without which this woman would never have gone for certification.
On the third and last page there is a statement by the "duly authorised officer" of the London County Council, and I wish I had time to say a lot about it. It seems to me that the duly authorised officer fixes all these things up, arranges transport, collects the magistrate and, while they are on their way to the house, gives the background to the case: and that is the way in which a person can be put away for years.
Of course, people will say—I only wish had time to go fully into it—that there are safeguards when people are in mental hospitals. What a farce that is. The safeguards might look wonderful on paper, but when it conies to reality they do not work out that way. Of course, Mrs. Thornton had the right to have an independent medical examination, but if anyone did select two local practitioners, can anybody expect that they would go against the evidence of the physician-superintendent? In this case—I have evidence of it—the independent medical examination was an absolute farce, because shortly afterwards the physician-superintendent gave testimony that Mrs. Thornton was all right, just before she

came out of the home. I have that testimony with me.
Even if the best man in the country is obtained, there is no guarantee and no hope whatever that the Board of Control would accept it. I have had a case with the physician in charge of the Psychiatric Department at Bromley Hospital, one of the greatest authorities in this business. In the Mary Betteridge case, he has given a complete indictment against keeping the girl in a Birmingham hospital, but one cannot get from the Board of Control the reason for keeping the girl.
I would also say that there are vested interests. I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the article in The Lancet by a great expert, Dr. Bickford, who makes quite clear the vested interests which keep people in mental homes long after they should be there, for cheap labour and other purposes.
Finally, I recommend the Parliamentary Secretary, against whom I have no complaint, to read the editorial in Wednesday's Manchester Guardian on mental patients. I am sorry I have had to rush my speech and cannot do the case justice, and I am sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary that I give her so little time in which to reply.

3.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): This is the second time I have risen to reply to a debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, and I must seek the indulgence of the House to speak now.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) has put this case on many occasions, and I regret the many and very grave accusations he has made against officers of the London County Council, the Board of Control and the hospital, and that he has left me so little time to give as full a reply as I should wish to do and could do. I would like to give the history of the case in order to put it in its proper perspective.
On 1st April, 1953, Mrs. Thornton was removed from her home and admitted to Cane Hill Hospital, Epsom, on the authority of a summary reception order made on 30th March by a justice of the peace under Section 16 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. The summary reception order was founded upon a perfectly properly


made medical certificate, made in statutory form, and given by a medical practitioner unconnected with the mental hospital. I would ask the hon. Member how he expects judgment in medical matters to be made except by a medical man.

Mr. Dodds: In only five minutes?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It was accompanied by a statutory form of statement of particulars signed by the duly authorised officer of the local health authority, whose statutory duty it was to bring the case to the notice of the justice. The lady's medical attendant did not also sign the statement of particulars, but his name was given, as is customary, at the foot of the statement, and was included for information only.
The length of time taken in the medical examination of a person alleged to be of unsound mind is a matter for the discretion of the doctor concerned. In many cases the patient is in a very sick condition, and it does not take long for that reason. There is no legal requirement that he should have seen the person previously.
The documents for the lady's reception into care were examined by the Board of Control and found to conform to all statutory requirements. It was, however, for the justice alone to decide, after examining the lady and on consideration of the evidence in the statutory medical certificate, whether a summary reception order should be made. Neither the Minister nor the Board has power to investigate the circumstances in which the justice's order was made, since such an order can be quashed or set aside only by the courts. If, therefore, the lady considers that she was wrongfully certified, it is open to her to seek legal advice.
As the hon. Member is aware, the Court of Protection, which is the authority responsible for the management and administration of the property of persons who are deemed to be incapable of managing their affairs, made an order on 10th June, 1955, appointing the Official Solicitor as Receiver of the lady's estate.

Mr. Dodds: Two years afterwards.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member has said on many occasions that the relatives have been fighting for two and

a half or three years to get her out. I would put the facts in their true order. An uncle first applied to the medical superintendent of Cane Hill Hospital on 14th March, 1956, for his niece's discharge to his care, she having been admitted in April, 1953. In arranging an interview with him on 24th March, it was explained that the current arrangement was that his niece should be sent on trial to a mental after-care home to afford the hospital authorities a better opportunity of judging her mental state and reaction to different surroundings. It was also pointed out that if she made satisfactory progress there would be no objection to her being discharged to her uncle's care afterwards.
On 20th March, a sister wrote her first and only letter to the Board of Control asking for the lady to be examined by that department, though she had had correspondence with the hospital since November, 1955, regarding her sister's going to a home for mental after-care. Her sister was informed on 11th April of the intention to test Mrs. Thornton's fitness for discharge by arranging to send her on trial in the near future to a mental after-care home.
On 24th April, 1956, the uncle made application to the Board of Control for an independent medical examination of his niece, giving it as his view that she had been wrongfully certified as a person of unsound mind. It is no good the hon. Member making wild accusations against honourable members of the medical profession. He wants them chosen independently for this work. He wants them to be independent of the Board of Control and the hospital. That was done in this case, but then the hon. Member repudiates the independent medical men's findings on three occasions because they do not happen to suit the point he wants to make.
Two independent medical practitioners were given an opportunity of examining the lady because the law requires that two practitioners shall visit a patient together on two separate occasions with not less than seven days intervening between the two visits. They were not required to have a report from the hospital for the purpose of their investigation. So as to "ganging up in advance", that can be repudiated. It is for the doctors alone to decide what facilities they need for further examination.
If, after the second examination, they certify that the patient may, without risk or injury to herself or the public, be discharged, and their certificates are produced to the Board, the Board may order the patient to be discharged. This is an important fact. No certificates were, in fact, produced to the Board in respect of the quite independent medical examination of the lady in question, and the leave on trial granted to her was extended by members of the Hospital Management Committee on 23rd August, 1956, for a further period of thirteen weeks.
Thus the independent inquiry for which the hon. Member persisted in asking in this House was not pursued to its logical conclusion, for reasons known only to the uncle and the practitioners, and the hon. Gentleman has made extremely grave allegations against those practitioners when he accused them of ganging up. I cannot accept the allegations made by the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Thornton was visited and interviewed by the medical superintendent on 12th September. On 26th September, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's inquiry about the discharge of the lady to the care of her uncle, he was informed that it was open to the uncle to make application for this to the Hospital Management Committee under Section 79 of the Lunacy Act, 1890. Under that Section members of the committee may discharge a patient upon the undertaking of the person making the application, to their satisfaction, that she will be properly taken care of and will not do injury to herself or others. Application was made by the uncle for his niece's discharge, and this was granted on 25th October, 1956.
There are mane other items in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman which should have liked to take up, but he had twice as much time as I have, so I will deal only with the question of the box. The normal procedure on admission of a patient is to make an inventory of belongings, and any valuables or documents are handed in at the clerk's office for safe keeping. Personal letters and small articles of sentimental value are generally left with the patient. In the case of Mrs. Thornton, the only possessions handed in were twenty-six books of National Savings Certificates and two Post Office Savings Books. One Savings Book was later ascertained to belong to her son and was returned

to him. The other was sent to the Official Solicitor.
Mrs. Thornton claimed that she had also brought a tin box with her, and the evidence regarding this, when the hon. Gentleman first took it up, was inconclusive. In the Minister's reply of 19th November to the hon. Gentleman he said that he was informed that she did not bring the box with her on admission, and it was therefore not included in the inventory of her belongings. It is not disputed that the box existed, but, at some stage, Mrs. Thornton asked the ward sister to take charge of a box which was amongst her personal belongings, which she had taken into the ward with her, and it was put into the ward store for safe keeping.
The box was transferred with Mrs. Thornton to another ward in which she spent the rest of her stay in hospital. Early in 1956 the Official Solicitor wrote to the hospital asking for the deposited documents and was informed of the official documents which had been deposited at the clerk's office in the first instance, but was not informed about the box.
When Mrs. Thornton went to the aftercare home a fresh inventory was made of all her property which she took away, and at that time she made no request for the box and its existence was overlooked. A few days after her discharge she came to the office, a search was made, and it was discovered next day safely locked away in the ward store room. An inventory was made of its contents, which comprised purely private letters, a number of documents, including a building society pass book and personal documents which were of no concern to the Official Solicitor.
Whatever the truth of the statement that she brought the box with her on admission, there is no suggestion that any of the contents were lost. The box was safely cared for and it was not handed over as an item of value to be cared for by the clerk, but was evidently retained by Mrs. Thornton as part of her personal possessions in the first instance.
In view of the wide publicity and the many unfair allegations made in this case, I regret that I have not the time to deal with many of the other points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dodds: There are a lot more.

HOSPITAL PATIENT (DEATH)

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The subject that I want to raise has a different emphasis from that raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), and I shall give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health the fullest possible time to give me an explanation of the death of one of my constituents, Mrs. Ethel M. Gill, who died in September, 1953.
The hon. Lady well knows the reason for the delay in raising the matter. It is that Mrs. Gill's husband sued the Radcliffe Infirmary, the convalescent home at Weston-super-Mare to which she was sent, and the doctors—I need not name them—who were concerned with her treatment at the time of her death. That action being pending over a considerable period—it has now been settled—it was not possible—I quite understand the situation—for the Ministry to make any announcement about its investigations into the case.
The legal aspect of the matter has dragged on for some time, but it is clear from the fact that I wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health, in October, 1953, asking him to investigate the case, that the circumstances were gone into at that time. I came to the conclusion—I think the hon. Lady will have reason to say this, too—as a result of the fact that the action was settled with considerable damages to the husband, that it was a serious case of neglect.
It is always a difficult type of case to raise, as my hon. Friend will agree, in view of the devoted work of the hospital service, and, indeed, of her admirable contribution to its administration, but that does not mean to say that when a case of this kind comes to light a proper explanation should not be given of the action taken to prevent such things in the future. It is also disagreeable to criticise the Radcliffe Infirmary in a case of this kind, or the convalescent home at Weston-super-Mare, but something went very seriously wrong in this case, and I want to raise the facts so that my hon. Friend can, say what she wants to say about what happened, about what action

was taken at the time, and about what precautions have been taken to avoid such things happening on a future occasion.
The defendants to the action were the Governors of the United Oxford Hospitals and the Weston-super-Mare Hospital Management Committee. The action was taken by the husband, Mr. S. B. Gill, my constituent. There is one point that I want to raise before I go into the facts about the settlement of the action. It is not very clear, from the order made in the High Court, whether liability was admitted by the United Oxford Hospitals and by the Weston-super-Mare Hospital Management Committee, but that matter is the subject of further action by Mr. Gill at present, and, indeed has been referred to the Law Society. Therefore, I need not go into that complication in raising the medical side of the matter.
Mrs. Gill was admitted to the Radcliffe Infirmary on 1st August, 1953. The diagnosis was that she was suffering from a strangulated hernia, and an operation was performed on her. There is some dispute as to the facts, as to whether it was said at the time that there was no danger to her, but the operation was performed, and the result of it was that she remained in the Radcliffe Infirmary until 13th August, no X-ray examination having at that time been taken of the swelling of her abdomen that resulted, and a certain number of other symptoms.
Indeed, when she left on 13th August, the operation wound, according to the Minister's letter to me, was well healed. Mrs. Gill left for the convalescent home at Weston-super-Mare. She told her husband, according to a statement which he made to me, and which was, of course, communicated to the defendants, that the wound had broken open, but that is a matter on which the evidence is disputed. The question does, however, arise as to whether she should have been discharged in view of what was subsequently discovered as to her condition at that time. She was discharged, according to the husband, as having been cured. Clearly, she was not cured; no doubt, that fact is admitted, in view of the settlement of the action with considerable damages to the husband in the case.
She remained at the convalescent home until 28th August. On 26th and 27th August it was noticed that her left leg


and thigh were painful and swollen. There is some dispute as to the facts here. The Minister in his letter to me said it was "a little swollen". When she was declared fit to travel the next day to Oxford and was seen by her husband on Oxford station, he noticed that the leg was so distended that it showed over her shoe. In my submission on the facts of the case, she clearly was in no condition at all to travel. Indeed, when one considers what was discovered in the post-mortem after her death only a few days later, that must obviously be right.
When I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health about this case, I drew his attention to the fact that the doctor who had seen her before she was discharged from the convalescent home thought that all this trouble of pain she was suffering from was rheumatic; he sad that the lessons had been learned. I would rather like to know what lessons had been learned. What records were sent from the Radcliffe Infirmary to the convalescent home, in view of the fact that, as I understand it, it was made known to the convalescent home that constant medical attention would be required in this case? How did it come about, in the view of the hon. Lady's Department, that Mrs. Gill was discharged?
It may be a matter for medical judgment. There are cases in which want of care and skill by a medical officer may result in legal action. None the less, my hon. Friend may think it is the duty of her Department to say something about a case of this kind which resulted in this lady's death which, in my submission, should never have occurred at all.
I have already mentioned the legal aspect of the matter, and I need not go further into the question of the exercise of medical judgment, save to say that when the Minister wrote to me, I having asked him what he had to say as to why the medical officer had discharged the lady from the convalescent home, he said that it was a matter of the exercise of medical judgment, adding:
Whether the doctor was justified or not in coming to this decision, I am really not in a position to say.
This was after the husband had recovered £2,000 damages in respect of the negligence of the staff of that convalescent home.
I feel we ought to hear about this, and it is a duty laid upon my hon. Friend's Department to say much more about it. Although this is not in any way intended to be an attack upon the services provided by these two particular hospitals, it is a case in which a much better explanation ought to have been given.
Mrs. Gill arrived unaccompanied back at Oxford in this very serious condition, as it turned out. She was met by her husband, and was then so ill that within 48 hours she was back in the Radcliffe Infirmary. The facts of the matter are not in dispute at all. It was found when she got back to the Radcliffe Infirmary that she was suffering from thrombosis of the left leg—this was provisionally diagnosed before her death—and also a pelvic abscess, the existence of which became clear before her death. The post-mortem showed matters which one would have thought ought to have been cleared up before.
It is plain that this is a matter of medical judgment, and it is perfectly true that medicine is not an exact science. Equally, it is plain that it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend's Department did not, in view of the clear case of negligence involved here, as shown by legal action, say a little more to the husband and in response to my inquiries as to whether any action has been taken to supervise cases of this kind in order to ensure that people are not discharged from hospital to a convalescent home, on the one hand, until they are cured, or to ensure that they do not, on the other hand, leave a convalescent home in a condition of this kind.
The post-mortem dated 8th September showed that in Mrs. Gill's leg there was a widespread septic thrombo-phlebitis, and it also revealed a pelvic abcess of a kind which may or may not have been expected. What is perfectly clear, without medical knowledge, is that she was very seriously ill at the time she was discharged from Weston-super-Mare. The conclusion of the post-mortem was that a small focus of infection remaining in the pelvis after the operation for hernia gave rise to the pelvic abcess.
If certain lessons have been learned and if, as the Minister states in his letter to me of 4th June, it is true that by these lessons being learned, Mr. Gill's object


has been achieved, in view of the circumstances of the case, I should like to know what lessons have been learned, and what has been done. It seems to me important that the matter should be raised from that point of view. My hon. Friend may tell me that the doctors made a mistake in this case; indeed, I understand that that is the position by the admission of liability—taking it only as far as the defendants in Weston-super-Mare are concerned.
Is there not a little clearer answer to be given, however, as to how it is that patients are allowed to leave the Radcliffe Infirmary in a condition which, at the time, one would have thought was noticeable? If my hon. Friend is satisfied that on a reasonable interpretation of the facts no doctor would have seen anything wrong with this lady at the time she left the infirmary, what is the position with regard to the convalescent home? Whose responsibility is it to see that patients do not leave in a condition as serious as this lady's must have been? A closer examination of the postmortem shows a wide degree of sepsis and a degree of thrombosis of a kind which one would have thought was of long standing.
Had this matter come to court that would have been some part of the plaintiff's case. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that everything has been done to avoid this kind of thing in future? Is she satisfied that something more than lessons have been learned, in the sense that some kind of administrative action has been taken? I hope that I have not taken up too much of my hon. Friend's time, and that she will be able to give me a reply on these points.

3.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): This is one of those unhappy cases where the process of law has been invoked on a matter which is always difficult to decide—that of a medical diagnosis. Medical diagnosis is not an exact science and, using all the skill and knowledge available, and with the best treatment, occasions arise when some symptom or condition evades the penetration of the medical officer.
In this case the proceedings have been long drawn out, over three years from

1953 to 1956, and because of the recourse to law my right hon. Friends the former and the present Minister could not comment upon the various points raised because the matter was sub judice. My right hon. Friend has, however, asked me to offer his deep sympathy on the tragic loss that Mr. Gill sustained in the death of his wife.
As the hon. Member has outlined, Mrs. Gill was admitted to Radcliffe Infirmary on 1st August, 1953, with a strangulated hernia, and was successfully operated on. In the ordinary way, she would have been discharged on the seventh or eighth day after that. As, however, she was thought by the surgeons to be rather a frail woman physically, they decided to send her for convalescence to Weston-super-Mare. That convalescent home could not take her until 13th August, and so she was not discharged from hospital after eight days. Because it was considered advisable not to send her home before convalescence, the Radcliffe Infirmary retained her for a further five days. She then appeared to have made a good recovery. The hospital therefore showed the patient every consideration, and there is no question of negligence there.
On 13th August, Mrs. Gill was transferred from the Radcliffe Infirmary to the convalescent home at Weston-super-Mare. At that time, the wound was well-healed apart from a quarter-inch stitch abscess which was superficial and in no way necessitated a further stay in hospital. Mrs. Gill had been up and about for some days before she left the Radcliffe Infirmary. The matron of the convalescent home was informed that there was still some discharge from the wound of the operation, mostly serum and some thickening of the tissues, and that dry dressing would be required. During her stay at the home, Mrs. Gill was able to take daily walks and enjoy the same activities as other patients. She was in fact up and about.
On 26th August, the day before Mrs. Gill was due to be discharged, she was seen by Dr. Kelly, the medical officer, who noted that she had gained some weight and had made satisfactory progress, and he decided that she was fit to travel and for discharge on the following day. A hospital car was arranged to meet the train at both ends. The hon. Member tells me that in fact Mr. Gill picked his


wife up, but the record of the Oxford ambulance service shows that an ambulance car was at the station to meet her at the other end.
The discharge of the lady on that day was an exercise of medical judgment, and whether the doctor was justified or not in coming to that decision the Minister is not in a position to say.
As regards absence of prior notification to Mr. Gill of his wife's return home, which the hon. Member has raised in correspondence, it was assumed that as she was at the convalescent home for a fixed period of fourteen days he would be aware that she would leave on 27th August, 1953, and that no reminder to him of the fact by the hospital was necessary.
Before she left the hospital, Mrs. Gill was advised to see her own doctor on arrival at her own home. On 28th August, Mrs. Gill was readmitted to the Radcliffe Infirmary. A pelvic abcess was suspected. She was correctly and adequately treated and there was no delay which could have any bearing on the outcome. There will, unfortunately, always be some cases where the hest judged treatment will unhappily fail to save life. There was no delay in her admission to the Radcliffe Infirmary; in diagnosing her suspected condition which subsequently proved to be a correct diagnosis, and in giving her immediate treatment for the pelvic abcess.
I would like to emphasise that a suggestion that the existence of a pelvic abcess noted post-mortem caused surprise, which was mentioned in a letter, was in fact due to a misunderstanding of the medical terms used. So far as the records of Radcliffe Infirmary show, there was no delay in suspecting this case, proving the diagnosis and providing the correct treatment for it.
The hospital services were made fully available at all stages of this unhappy case. The only doubtful issue concerns the fitness of Mrs. Gill to undertake the return journey from Weston-super-Mare to Oxford, and, as already said, this was an exercise of medical judgment. The Minister, as he has said in correspondence to my hon. Friend, feels sure that any lesson to be learned by the particular practitioner has indeed been learned in this case and to that extent Mr. Gill's object has been achieved. But an error

of judgment is not the same as medical negligence, and I want to make that point clear to the hon. Member. As he knows, Mr. Gill brought proceedings against the two doctors, and from those two defendants he accepted an amount in full settlement of his claim.
As is customary, the other defendants, the Oxford Board of Governors and the Weston-super-Marc Hospital Management Committee, approved the settlement of the proceedings but they were not concerned in the payment of damages. They had never been in communication with the plaintiff's solicitors and never at any time admitted neglect or liability. This case was settled out of court on payment of £2,010 damages.
That Mrs. Gill received full care and treatment at the Radcliffe Infirmary is not. I think, in question. What is questionable is whether there was an error of judgment regarding Mrs. Gill's fitness to travel. In such a matter, the layman, cannot decide: and indeed after a lapse of three years, and with all the medical records, it is even more difficult to assess the error of judgment. What has not been proved, nor has it been tested in the courts, was whether there was negligence, which if proved would have involved the employing authorities, the hospitals, concerned.

Mr. Neave: I cannot possibly accept that. This was an action for negligence against the Weston-super-Mare Hospital Management Committee, settled for £2,000 damages, in which the Committee clearly admitted liability.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have not time to repeat what I have said, but the hon. Gentleman will read it tomorrow in HANSARD. I can only affirm that this matter was settled by the Medical Defence Union for the two doctors and, as is the normal form, in order to avoid duplication of cases, the other defendants were associated with the settlement although at no time were they in contact with the solicitors, and they have never accepted liability. Nor do they accept any claim of negligence.
The issue was not tried, and the Minister cannot assume negligence such as would merit the request which my hon. Friend has made for an official reprimand to the hospital. In such a matter as this, where there is doubt as to the medical


judgment of one of the doctors, the protracted proceedings and the final settlement cannot have failed to be well registered in the minds of the staff and the authorities of the hospital.
I would again, in this most unfortunate case, like to express our deep sympathy with Mr. Gill in his bereavement and our regret that he should still feel anxiety in the matter.

MR. J. P. HARRIGAN

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: It is appropriate, I think, that at the Christmas season the last plea before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess should be one for justice and perhaps some generosity from the State on behalf of a poor man who has suffered grievous wrong at the hands of the State. I refer to the case of Mr. J. P. Harrigan who was wrongfully imprisoned.
This is a case with which the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is familiar, but I think it right that I should as briefly as possible state, first of all, the bare facts of the ease. At 4.15 on 5th April last, in Charterhouse Street, two men snatched a wages satchel containing £2,000 and escaped with it in a car driven by a confederate. During the morning of 10th April police officers called at Mr. Harrigan's home and asked him to attend the police station to take part in an identification parade in connection with the crime. Mr. Harrigan told them that he knew nothing about the matter and was on that day engaged in his business as a scrap metal dealer. Later on the same day, when the police called at his home to search the flat, his wife produced his account hooks to prove that this was correct.
Prior to the identification parade Mr. Harrigan told the police that he had committed no crime, but that he had no objection to being put up for identification. At the parade he was identified by a person who, it was subsequently found, had been standing some thirty yards away from the scene of the crime. The man from whom the bag was snatched could not identify Harrigan and said that it was impossible to pick out anybody. Nevertheless, on the identifica-

tion of the bystander. Harrigan was charged with the crime of robbery with violence.
A few days later the same bystander was invited to attend another parade and identified a second man whom he said had been involved in this crime. This second man was a perfectly innocent person who had been put in by the police to make up the number of the parade. Naturally the police disregarded that identification.
What is remarkable—and I want the Minister to note this—is that this failure did not cause the police to have any doubts about this witness's earlier identification of Mr. Harrigan. He still protested his innocence, but when asked immediately after the identification where he was at the ime of the crime, he said he did not know. He had some time to think about it—

It being Four o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

Mr. Collins: In actual fact he did not then know when the crime had bean committed he had to go to a newspaper office to find out. At the Guildhall, Harrigan—on the advice of his solicitors—pleaded not guilty, reserved his defence and elected to go for trial. Both his solicitor and defending counsel, an hon. Member of this House, told him that on the evidence put forward at the Guildhall no jury could possibly convict, Meanwhile, Harrigan had recalled that at the time of the crime he was in pursuance of his business in the yard of an old-established metal merchant, two miles away from the scene of the crime.
That merchant gave evidence for him at his trial, as did another business man who had called at the yard during the time he was there. A third witness for him was the licensee of a public house adjoining the yard. His alibi proving that he could not possibly have committed the crime was thus supported by three responsible business men, all of good character. There were other witnesses he might have called, but his legal advisers did not think they were necessary.
On 22nd June, at the Old Bailey, he was found guilty and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Later, leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was heard on 29th October before the Lord Chief Justice. On that occasion the trial judge's summing-up was called into question and evidence of a new witness was admitted. That witness was an estate agent who had called at Mr. Harrigan's home about the letting of a yard in which Harrigan was interested and was told that he would find him in the metal merchant's yard. The conviction was quashed and Harrigan was released after serving eighteen weeks in prison. Meanwhile, he and his family had been involved in the gravest hardship. He has lost his business. He has had to sell his lorry to raise the cost of his first trial which, with the costs of the appeal, totalled £215. Mrs. Harrigan sold kitchen and bedroom furniture and other things to raise part of the money. They still owe £85, which they had borrowed from friends.
Prior to his conviction, Harrigan's earnings on an average were £10 a week. He was unable to get a job immediately he came out of prison and, in fact, only started at the beginning of this month. He lost twenty-four weeks work and something like £240 in earnings. His total financial loss was something like £500. In addition, there is the anguish suffered by his wife, who had to apply for National Assistance, and the distress caused to his family.
Those are two bare facts of a cruel wrong which the law has done to this innocent man and his family. On three separate occasions I have appealed to the Home Secretary to make an adequate ex gratia payment in compensation, but the Home Secretary has refused to pay a penny. I want to remind the Joint Under-Secretary of the statements he and the Home Secretary have made on the subject of police methods in respect of identification parades.
On 25th October, in a Question, I said that it was a common practice of the police to put up for identification
… persons presently at liberty who have previous convictions for the same type of crime. …
The Home Secretary said there was no foundation for that suggestion. He declared that men were put up only if

they answered the description of the suspected person and there was
… some evidence or other good reason to connect him with the crime. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 856.]
Will the Joint Under-Secretary still say so in the face of the facts of Harrigan's case? There was no jot or tittle of evidence, no reason whatever to connect him with the crime, and the police did not look for any reasons or any evidence.
On 15th November, when I again asked for a review of police methods of selecting individuals for identification parades in order to prevent injustices, the Joint Under-Secretary himself declared:
There is no ground for suggesting that procedure in connection with identification parades has caused injustice in recent cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1956; Vol 560, c. 1125.]
He declared that the Police Commissioner's existing instructions provided all proper safeguards and he refused to review them.
In the face of the Harrigan case, would the hon. Gentleman dare to stand at that Box and say that there was no injustice and that all proper safeguards were applied? Of course he would not, and cannot.
If the Minister and the Home Secretary maintain this attitude, as recently expressed, they deny the truth of something known to every policeman and, I should think, almost to every schoolboy. Of course the police have their crime records—the finest in the world; and, of course, they use them. It would be utterly foolish and wrong of them if they did not. When a crime is committed they look at those records to see who is at liberty and who is on the run, yank them in and, if there is identification, make the charge stick.
That is what I object to in this case. That is what happened in this case, and I say that it is quite wrong. The Minister knows that I am speaking the plain, unvarnished truth. He also knows that on 1st November, and again on 15th November, I put Questions asking what compensation would be paid to Mr. Harrigan. In the course of his answers, whilst refusing to pay anything, he told me that the Court of Criminal Appeal had power to order the payment of costs to an appellant. In this case they had not done so. He said that in the second place ex gratia payments from public funds


were made only in exceptional cases, and only when innocence was established, substantial hardship had resulted which was attributable to negligence, or misconduct on the part of the police.
I submit that this case satisfies all those requirements. Mr. Harrigan's innocence was established beyond doubt, and to the satisfaction of the Lord Chief Justice. There was cruel and crippling hardship, and the police were negligent. I do not allege misconduct at all, but I say that they were negligent for these reasons. First, when a civilian is asked to attend an identification parade, there is an assumption that the guilty party is there, and there is a tendency to pick out the person looking most like the criminal. It is negligence on the part of the police if they fail to make it perfectly clear beforehand that there is no certainty at all that the guilty person is among those paraded.
Secondly, in this case the bystander who identified Mr. Harrigan—the only one—and who was, in fact, responsible for his conviction, made another foolish and mistaken identification a few days later. The police were negligent in that, despite this, they proceeded on the assumption that he was a reliable and credible witness. It was their plain duty to make inquiries into Mr. Harrigan's whereabouts, in order to ascertain where he was when the crime took place. They neglected that duty.
Thirdly, they failed completely to satisfy the Home Secretary's own requirement of getting some other evidence, or other good reason to connect the man with the crime. I should like to know whether the Joint Under-Secretary admits that that is true. If the police had not neglected this public duty in these three ways this man would not have had to stand trial. They would have withdrawn the charges.
It seems to be beyond dispute, therefore, that, by the Minister's own rules, my constituent is entitled to a substantial ex gratia payment to compensate him for the wrongs which he suffered. In this, I am supported, as the Minister knows, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and, indeed, by hon. Members on both sides, who expressed the same view when I raised

the matter on 15th November. But I appeal also on grounds of justice and common decency. We cannot just hound a man who is trying to make good, drag him from his home, and for no other reason than that he has sinned before put him in prison, ruin and blacken his family and then say, "Sorry—there is nothing we can do".
There is something that we can do. The Home Secretary has power to make payment, and I submit that he must do so. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) raised a similar case. There are, unfortunately, many of these cases, although they may not come to trial or be mentioned in this House in this way. Nevertheless, there are many of them. When my hon. Friend raised a similar case, the Joint Under-Secretary then said that the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed some 25 convictions a year, and that there were some 325 successful appeals at quarter sessions each year. He said it was impossible to consider making payments in all such cases. Why not? There may be exceptions, but, in the main, these persons have suffered grievous loss and shame attaching to wrongful imprisonment. Innocent persons should not be made to carry the whole burden of such misfortunes.
I believe I am expressing the view of the overwhelming majority of ordinary people, and in this I am supported by an editorial in the Star of 16th November, commenting on the Harrigan case. It quoted the following words uttered by the Home Secretary earlier this year when he announced ex gratia payments of £1,000 in another case:
When a man has been imprisoned as a result of what turns out to have been a mistake it is right that the State should make some payment as a symbol of its desire to acknowledge error and do what is possible to square the account.
That seems simple justice and exactly fits the Harrigan case. Fortunately, of course such cases are rare. They would be even rarer if it were known that mistakes had to be paid for, but, as the Star says,
This should not be left to the vageries of Whitehall. It should be the law that an innocent man who suffers the stigma of prison should receive compensation as of right.
I think I have proved my case according to the regulation which the Under-


Secretary himself has announced. The three requirements have been fulfilled. This man has suffered and has been greatly wronged. It is for the Under-Secretary today to do what he can to put it right and square the account. I ask him to deal justly with the case which I have put forward, point by point, and, animated by the spirit of justice and perhaps, too, by the spirit of Christmas, I hope he will announce his Department's willingness to pay Mr. Harrigan the compensation to which he is entitled; or, at least, I hope he will give an assurance that he will bring before his right hon. Friend the points which I have raised this afternoon in order that the matter can be considered again.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) has made out a glaring case of injustice. He suggested that in this case, as in others, there ought to be an ex gratia payment. I would go further and say that it is not at all a question of an ex gratia payment. I should have thought that this man, as in other cases, should be entitled to compensation, not ex gratia but as of right.
In a civil case when a plaintiff brings an unsuccessful action against the defendant, the defendant gets the costs unless there is some good reason why he should not get them—because of misconduct on the part of the defendant or for some similar reason. In criminal cases it is quite true there is a power to award costs, but it is very unfortunate that that power is very sparingly used.
All the more so is justice called for in a case in which a person is tried, has to suffer the expense of the trial, has all the attendant anxiety, is wrongly convicted and spends his time in prison, after which it is discovered that the conviction is wrong. I am aware of the answer which was given by the Under-Secretary, the suggestion that unless the police are guilty of negligence in some way, compensation ought not to be paid. I strongly urge that that view is utterly and completely wrong. It is not a question of whether the police have been guilty of negligence or not. A man has suffered in this way and the prosecution were wrong in the action they took.
I should have thought that the view which ought to prevail is this simple one that unless the prosecution can show that it was due to some fault on the part of the prisoner that the proceedings were brought, and unless the judge certifies to that effect, the defendant in a criminal case ought to be awarded the costs, and if the matter went further and he was convicted and sent to prison he ought to be given compensation—not ex gratia but as of right. I hope that before very long the time will arrive when we recognise that simple justice demands a course of this kind.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): This is the second occasion within ten days when we have had to discuss a case of this kind. I should like to begin by assuring the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) that neither that fact nor the circumstances in which we are discussing this case, it being the last item before we rise for Christmas, disposes me to treat the matter lightly. Indeed, my approach is quite the reverse. Apart altogether from the position of the individual involved, there are serious principles involved here. I do not dispute that for a moment.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has referred to the background to these cases which I gave on 13th December. I do not propose to repeat what I then said. It would take up time unnecessarily. There are, however, two points which I should stress. First, though this may not be telling the hon. Member anything which he does not know already, it should be put on record that the law imposes no obligation on the Executive to pay compensation to persons acquitted on trial or appeal, or even to those granted free pardons. The hon. Gentleman may feel that it should, but to discuss that would be out of order. As matters stand, it does not; and that ought to be made clear.
Coming now to what has been the practice, I wish to mention the principles which have guided Home Secretaries, not only the present Home Secretary but his predecessors, in these cases. On 13th December I said that the invariable policy of Secretaries of State had been not to


make ex gratia payments to acquitted defendants or successful appellants, save in circumstances which I specified, those being—as the hon. Gentleman correctly quoted—where the conviction had arisen through negligence on the part of the police or other public officials.
This is not simply a matter of administrative convenience, a device behind which to shelter. There is a sound reason for it, and I do beg the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury—as I am sure he will—to consider it objectively.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that all those acquitted could be paid. I am bound to say that I dispute that. It would be questionable then for the Government to select among those innocent before the law those whom they thought deserving of payment. Apart altogether from the principle involved, since that involves the intrusion of the Executive in judicial functions, it is not difficult to see how it might come to establish a double standard of innocence and really create more injustice than it remedied.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman said I was suggesting that compensation should be paid as of right to all persons acquitted. At the most, I have mentioned only successful appellants, those whose appeals are upheld.

Mr. Deedes: I accept that correction, but it does not alter the basis of what I have just said.
The hon. Gentleman has given the sequence of events in this specific case accurately, but with his own commentary. Perhaps I might give the sequence of events with my commentary. First, I do not accept the last point which the hon. Member made that there was negligence on the part of the police. On the contrary, there was a very positive identification by an independent witness whose integrity has never been questioned, and the police would have been seriously open to criticism if, despite the identification, they had not brought the facts before a court. I may add that, since the charge rested solely on the evidence about identification, the police released Harrigan on bail and asked the justices not to remand or commit him in custody.
The second thing that it is fair to stress is that it was open to Mr. Harrigan to have called Mr. Greenland, who was the

relevant witness in the last stages of the case, as a witness at the trial. For his own reasons, he did not do so. The hon. Member mentioned that Mr. Greenland's evidence was ultimately admitted. That is not a fair presentation of what happened. For his own reasons, Mr. Harrigan did not call Mr. Greenland at the trial. I do not think that it now lies with him to blame the authorities if, as a result, he was convicted when he would otherwise almost certainly have been acquitted.
The third point I wish to make is in respect of delay in dealing with the appeal, which has a great bearing on the hardship to which the hon. Member referred, resulting in four months in prison. Harrigan appeared at the Central Criminal Court on 22nd June. After a retirement of an hour, the jury convicted him of robbery, and he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Four days later, Harrigan applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against the conviction. In his initial grounds of appeal, he said that certain evidence had not been brought up which would have placed a different aspect on the case, but he did not say what the evidence was.
Three months later, on the 29th September to be exact, Harrigan applied to the court for leave to call a further witness, Mr. Greenland, and on 11th October the Court of Criminal Appeal received from Harrigan's solicitors additional grounds of appeal. On 22nd October, the Court of Criminal Appeal gave leave to appeal and took the exceptional course of allowing Harrigan to call Mr. Greenland, notwithstanding that he could have been called at the trial. The appeal was heard on 29th October, and after considering the further evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeal decided to quash the conviction.
It is true that Harrigan was in custody as a convicted prisoner from 22nd June to 29th October—a period of four months—but it is apparent to me, and, I hope, to the hon. Member, that the Court of Criminal Appeal would have been ready to proceed either in the last week of July or in the Long Vacation Court had it been required to do so. The case appears to have been delayed because the solicitors were not ready to proceed.
It is fair to stress, in answer to the two points made by the hon. Member, first, that if Mr. Greenland had been called by the defence at the trial, although one can never be certain about these things, it is more than likely that the jury would have reached a different verdict, but this vital witness was not called. Indeed, the defence that Harrigan had been with Mr. Greenland at the time of the crime was not disclosed until Harrigan applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal on 29th September for leave to call further evidence. It was clearly not possible for the police to verify Mr. Greenland's evidence before the trial, as, I am sure, the hon. Member will accept.
The second thing I want to stress concerning the last remarks made by the hon. Member relates to the identification parade.

Mr. Collins: The police could have checked upon the other three witnesses, but they did not ask Harrigan.

Mr. Deedes: The really important witness was Greenland, and as I have just said, it was not until 29th September that permission was sought to call the further evidence that Mr. Greenland could give.
Concerning the identification parade, on which the hon. Member and I have had exchanges at Question Time, I think the hon. Member will accept that there is no evidence of irregularity at the identification parade at which Harrigan appeared. I know that the hon. Member does not suggest that. Harrigan quite readily agreed to be put up for identification. He was paraded with eight other men of similar height, description and age, and he afterwards expressed satisfaction with the conduct of the parade.
Perhaps I might make these general observations in reply to the hon. Member. The circumstances of cases for identification parades obviously differ widely. In some cases, the evidence of

identification by a single witness might be almost conclusive—for example, where the offender is known by sight to the witness or where the witness has had a particularly good chance to observe the offender's appearance. I can think of occasions when such evidence would be worth more than the identification of several witnesses who had only a fleeting glimpse of the offender. The weight to be attached to evidence of identification is essentially a matter for the jury, subject to the direction of the judge, and judges can be left to give the necessary guidance to the jury when the occasion arises in a particular case.
I do not want to go beyond that. I wanted only to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks on identification parades in rather more perspective by adding those general remarks of my own. I am sorry, particularly at this Christmas period, that I cannot accede to the request which the hon. Gentleman made, but I have at least met his request that I should answer the points which he made. I think that I have answered them point for point.
I have only, for my part, if I may so trespass on order, to wish you, Mr. Speaker, your staff, the hon. Gentleman and others present a happy Christmas.

Mr. Collins: Mr. Speaker, may I also trespass on order to wish you, Sir, and your staff, on behalf of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, a restful, peaceful Christmas and an invigorating New Year?

Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged for what has been said, and I heartily reciprocate the good wishes for Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Four o'clock, till Tuesday, 22nd January, 1957, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.